Post New

“They have chosen not to accept our terms,” Vance said in a brief news conference.

As Vance was detailing the impasse in negotiations, Pedo Don and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were watching a video montage of UFC fighting at a sports arena in Miami.

Umm.

“They have chosen not to accept our terms,” Vance said in a brief news conference.

What were their terms, "surrender"?

Trump the Conqueror claims he doesn't care how the negotiations come out. He claims he wins either way.

He also claims two USN ships sailed through the Strait to start mine clearance. Except the two ships named are Burke class DDGs, not minesweepers. The Iranians claimed they warned the ships off, before they transited the strait, and they turned around.

Who is Baghdad Bob?

Steve

What were their terms, "surrender"?


Give up their nuclear weapons program, the one they always claimed to never have.

He also claims two USN ships sailed through the Strait to start mine clearance. Except the two ships named are Burke class DDGs, not minesweepers.

They sailed in, they sailed out. The next phase the Navy works on is clearing a mine-free channel.

Oh, and they’ll likely set up a blockade if some sort of Iran wants to close the straits.

Give up their nuclear weapons program, the one they always claimed to never have.

What Vance said was words to the effect, give up their weapons program, and anything that could ever be used for a weapons program. I read that as never having any sort of enrichment capability, and never having any U. The deal the Omani mediator was saying they were closing in on was Iran downmixing the 60% U they have to power plant grade, and be able to produce fuel for their reactor in the future.

They sailed in, they sailed out. The next phase the Navy works on is clearing a mine-free channel.

Sailing a couple Burke class DDGs through an uncleared minefield is foolhardy. Those ships cost over $2B each. As we found when Iran was mining the Gulf 40 years ago, tankers can take a mine hit better than a DD or a Frigate, due to their size.

And, once a mine field is cleared, it can be relaid again. Really, it doesn't take much of a boat to lay mines. Does Trump the Conqueror want to use a multi-million dollar missile to destroy every dhow in the area?

Steve

Oh, and they’ll likely set up a blockade if some sort of Iran wants to close the straits.

Trump the Pirate King blockades all Iranian tankers, and Iran blockades all non-Iranian tankers? Yes, Trump's paymasters in USian big oil would profit even more, from Trump and Iran combining to restrict oil supply even more. Trump the Conqueror is already bragging about all the tankers on their way to the US, to outbid USians, for US produced oil. If Trump blocks Iranian exports too, that will send even more people to the US, to drive the price of US produced oil even higher. How much do you want to pay? $5? $7? $9/gallon? Because everyone else is so desperate to get some oil.

Steve

I think the problem re: the Hormuz Strait is really that while the U.S. could clearly obliterate Iranian forces if needed to try to get control of the strait, typically, if the country in control of a chokepoint believes it is going to lose the conflict, there are various tactics they can use, even while losing the larger war, to frustrate the victor's ability to gain anything from the military victory. This would include things like laying lots more underwater mines; or even scuttling their own vessel, or other ships like oil tankers, to make the strait largely impassable. You know like the mentality of a suicide bomber: "If I can't win, I'll make sure no one can win."

Clearing the debris field could take many months which would make the victory Pyrrhic.

This would include things like laying lots more underwater mines; or even scuttling their own vessel, or other ships like oil tankers, to make the strait largely impassable.

The Strait is some 20 miles wide. The established shipping lanes are each 2 miles wide. Depth varies from 150-650 feet. It would take a lot of blockships. Mines are the better bet. Just the threat of mines sends the insurance companies running.

Steve

Trump the Pirate King blockades all Iranian tankers, and Iran blockades all non-Iranian tankers?

It would be interesting to see what happens, when Trump the Pirate King tries to seize a Chinese flag tanker.

Steve

What were their terms, "surrender"?


Dope: Give up their nuclear weapons program, the one they always claimed to never have.

No. There were 10 points - you always lead with more than you want so you have things to give away. I always cut to the chase. And they've had the ability to proceed to nuclear weapons for a while, why didn't they?

He also claims two USN ships sailed through the Strait to start mine clearance. Except the two ships named are Burke class DDGs, not minesweepers.

Dope: They sailed in, they sailed out. The next phase the Navy works on is clearing a mine-free channel.

When Dope? So have we charted a narrow mine free path? Some of those mines drift. Times a wastin' Dope. Get those mines off the 4D chess board.

Oh, and they’ll likely set up a blockade if some sort of Iran wants to close the straits.

Yep - that's what Trump announced. Which makes sense. We obviously lack the ability to open the straits, despite claims to the contrary - so we might as well also have a role in them being closed.

I hope that the Administration has a plan to deal with the two obvious risks to doing this. The first, of course, is the devastating global economic impact this will have. We're now at the point where nearly all the oil that was in transit before the war has reached its destination port. So now starts one of the biggest energy crises in modern history (Trump does love to do things that are record-breaking, never in history). It's going to be destructive for everyone - and particularly the Gulf states who are along with Iran going to lose a lot of their revenue.

The other risk, which is hopefully a little more remote but potentially far more dangerous, is China. We can impose a blockade, but the real test is what happens if a Chinese-flagged ship shows up - perhaps escorted by Chinese government or military vessels. When that happened with a Russian-flagged ship in Cuba, we stood aside; and perhaps that's what we would do if Chinese ships showed up to the Gulf. But otherwise, it will be a very fraught situation. Given China's energy trade with Iran, and their desire for that to continue, they have a lot of incentive to try and have that happen. They also must be aware of how dangerous that would be, though, so maybe they hold off.

No. There were 10 points -

The headline:

Iran chose 'not to accept our terms', US VP Vance says after negotiations

Vance said the US "could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms". Halting Iran's nuclear capabilities had been a "core goal" that wasn't reached.

Iran's foreign ministry says the talks were "intensive", and called on Washington to refrain from "excessive demands and unlawful requests".

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cqj82xn9n8eo

When one party says they demand acceptance of their terms, I read that as demanding surrender, not a negotiation.

So, the exercise was a kabuki dance, so Trump the God Awful can paint himself as the peacemaker, again, while the additional shipload of Marines draws closer.

Steve

Trump the Pirate King blockades all Iranian tankers, and Iran blockades all non-Iranian tankers? Yes, Trump's paymasters in USian big oil would profit even more, from Trump and Iran combining to restrict oil supply even more. Trump the Conqueror is already bragging about all the tankers on their way to the US, to outbid USians, for US produced oil. If Trump blocks Iranian exports too, that will send even more people to the US, to drive the price of US produced oil even higher. How much do you want to pay? $5? $7? $9/gallon? Because everyone else is so desperate to get some oil.


You should have joined Team Trump. All of us MAGA people get our $10,000 Big Oil checks in the mail each month.

I hope that the Administration has a plan to deal with the two obvious risks to doing this. The first, of course, is the devastating global economic impact this will have. We're now at the point where nearly all the oil that was in transit before the war has reached its destination port. So now starts one of the biggest energy crises in modern history (Trump does love to do things that are record-breaking, never in history). It's going to be destructive for everyone - and particularly the Gulf states who are along with Iran going to lose a lot of their revenue.

China gets 45% of their oil through the Gulf. They're going to be burning up phone lines to Tehran telling them to make a deal.
The other thing are the mines themselves - the Chinese aren't going to be gung-ho about sailing their brand new pretty Navy through mine infested waters. They'd rather the US Navy do that.

So the solution here is likely to be: blockade all tankers carrying Iranian oil, regardless of whose flag they carry. It's unlikely China will let Iran re-flag their ships because that would mean a) China taking Iran's side, openly b) China really pissing off the other Gulf states, from which they buy lots of oil.

Reason b) is why you won't see Chinese destroyers escorting Iranian tankers.

The Russian-flagged tanker that went to Cuba was a "so what". Putin sent them a load of oil and didn't get paid for it. Humanitarian crisis delayed a bit and Russia got zero dollars.

If the Chinese send anything to the Gulf...it'll be to help clear mines.

Vance said the US "could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms". Halting Iran's nuclear capabilities had been a "core goal" that wasn't reached.

This is somewhat puzzling, though. The Administration has repeatedly insisted that we have already accomplished all of the objectives for the war. That's the basis for their claim we had already won. Except this was our main objective.

Granted, the list of objectives has varied over time, especially at the beginning of the war. The Administration eventually settled on a list of four. That list of four wasn't always consistent for a while, either. But the list always included some variant of, "Iran will never get a nuclear weapon."

But that's the puzzle. If the war was successful in achieving that goal, if we've accomplished all our war objectives....why do we need to insist that Iran do anything? Why do we need to get them to give assurances that they would not seek to obtain or develop a nuclear weapon in the future? How can that be one of the "core goals" of the negotiations, if the military operation was a success?

It sounds far more like the Administration is being forced to confront the main criticism against this adventure from the start - you can't bomb Iran into not being able to get a nuclear weapon. You can't stop them from getting a nuke going forward just by blowing up stuff from a distance, no matter how much stuff you blow up. This objective was never achievable with the type of air operation they contemplated, barring getting super-lucky and having the regime collapse and be replaced by one that didn't want to pursue a nuclear program.

If we're having to negotiate to get them to voluntarily abandon their nuclear program, that sure sounds like we have failed to already achieve that objective on our own. Or am I missing something?

Hello HamasSteve203,

I've got a hypothetical for you:

You go into a room and there's a wall with 25 penis-sized holes in it. (I mean average size penis holes, so you'll have plenty of room to spare.)

In one of the holes, chosen at random, there is a beautiful woman who, if you stick it in that hole, will take care of you.

In 23 of the holes, there is nothing at all.

In the 25th hole, which could be any of the holes, wzambon is lying in wait to bite off any dick that comes through the hole.

Do you go for the bj or do you pass?

Now, I get the feeling you don't have much personal use for that particular appendage, so you might actually take the gamble.

Those of us who do still use our equipment, wouldn't.

It's the same thing with sabotaging the passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

This is somewhat puzzling, though. The Administration has repeatedly insisted that we have already accomplished all of the objectives for the war. That's the basis for their claim we had already won. Except this was our main objective.

No it isn't. We've largely destroyed their ability to make nuclear weapons. What we don't want is them trying to start it all up again. The negotiations are about the future state of Iran.

Granted, the list of objectives has varied over time, especially at the beginning of the war.

The objectives never wavered. Before they were even announced I wrote on this board what they were going to be: Eliminate Iran's ability to project power in the Middle East and beyond. How would one do that?

-Destroy their Air Force
-Destroy their Navy
-Eliminate their ballistic missile and drone capabilities
-Sever their links with their terror proxies

Or am I missing something?

Yes. We'd rather they knock this stuff off and spend their money productively instead of trying to throttle the region with nuclear weapons.

We've largely destroyed their ability to make nuclear weapons. What we don't want is them trying to start it all up again. The negotiations are about the future state of Iran.

We had already destroyed their ability to make nuclear weapons, in the present tense. Remember? We obliterated their nuclear program last year. An obvious illustration of how blowing stuff up can't achieve an objective about the future state of Iran, since that's something that we still need to secure. Through a deal of some kind, apparently. Perhaps we could call that deal some kind of plan of action. Maybe something that's comprehensive?

The objectives never wavered.

Of course they have. The Administration has voiced different objectives:

1. Unconditional surrender of Iran (DJT, Mar 6)
2. Regime change and freedom for the Iranian people (DJT, Feb 28)
3. Elimination of existing ballistic missiles. (Hegseth Mar 2 and later)
4. Elimination of ballistic missile production capabilities, later shifted to degrading or reducing (various times)
5. Elimination of navy (various times)
6. Elimination of air force (various times)
7. Elimination of ability to fund or support terror proxies (various times)
8. Prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon (various times)
9. Open strait of hormuz (later in the war).

Eventually, they settled on four (though not always the same four). Rubio's enumeration of the four were numbers 4, 5, 6 and 8 above. Hegseth's original list was numbers 3, 4, 5 and 8. Your list is different from both of theirs, since you have 3+4, 5, 6, and 7 (surprisingly, not nukes), which is one of the consistent war objectives from the Administration but appears to not be achievable through the war.

We'd rather they knock this stuff off and spend their money productively instead of trying to throttle the region with nuclear weapons.

That wasn't my question. I know we'd rather them not have nukes. My question was how we can possibly think we've achieved our war objectives if we haven't actually prevented them from ever having a nuclear weapon, since that was one of our most important objectives?

China gets 45% of their oil through the Gulf. They're going to be burning up phone lines to Tehran telling them to make a deal.

You think our arch rival (which even you acknowledge) will actually bail us out of a major clusterfuck of our own making?

Maybe you’ve never heard of the following statement, but China certainly has:
“Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake.”

China is extremely happy to see the United States hanging in the wind.

It might hurt China, but it will hurt the United States much more.

China also has a huge reserve of oil and they, unlike the U.S., has invested heavily in renewable energy.

And the U.S.? We’re in a hole and we keep digging. Maybe Trump thinks if he digs deep enough, he’ll strike oil.

As a wise man once said, “Patience, grasshopper.”. The Chinese have time to spare, we don’t.

Read for yourself:

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/IRAN-CRISIS/CHINA...

If we're having to negotiate to get them to voluntarily abandon their nuclear program, that sure sounds like we have failed to already achieve that objective on our own. Or am I missing something?

Nope. Hegseth was also saying essentially that Iran would either give them their enriched uranium or they would take it from them. Perhaps that's what all the troops are for.

China gets 45% of their oil through the Gulf. They're going to be burning up phone lines to Tehran telling them to make a deal.

The other thing are the mines themselves - the Chinese aren't going to be gung-ho about sailing their brand new pretty Navy through mine infested waters. They'd rather the US Navy do that.

I don't think they'd sail the navy through the strait. They'd escort the vessels through the blockade. The US Navy isn't going to set up their blockade in the area that's mined - they'll be seaward of that spot.

As for "burning up the phone lines" to get Tehran to cut a deal, that seems unlikely. They're vastly better off if the U.S. gets our nose pushed in by this whole affair and are far more likely to try to get oil deliveries out instead. That's why I worry about Chinese-flagged vessels being a potential solution they employ. That ramps up the stakes dramatically.

So the solution here is likely to be: blockade all tankers carrying Iranian oil, regardless of whose flag they carry. It's unlikely China will let Iran re-flag their ships because that would mean a) China taking Iran's side, openly b) China really pissing off the other Gulf states, from which they buy lots of oil.

Well, that effectively closes the straits, though. If we're not letting Iranian oil through, it's doubtful that Iran will let other oil through - or any of the other cargo that's being held up, like natural gas or helium or fertilizer. That's going to put a lot of stress on the global economy - to say nothing of those "other Gulf states," which we would like to have as allies as well.

It becomes a contest of which side is willing to suffer more punishment. Is the U.S. willing to endure rampant price increases and (perhaps) a worldwide recession bordering into a depression? Is Iran willing to endure the damage to its economy? With leadership in both countries being fairly insulated from political pressure from the people (Iran's not a democracy, Trump's not up for re-election), this could go on for quite a while...

China gets 45% of their oil through the Gulf. They're going to be burning up phone lines to Tehran telling them to make a deal.

I think more likely that China is contacting the US and saying if you want rare earths and other critical items, open up the Straights of Hormuz by making a deal.

Aussi

We had already destroyed their ability to make nuclear weapons, in the present tense. Remember? We obliterated their nuclear program last year. An obvious illustration of how blowing stuff up can't achieve an objective about the future state of Iran, since that's something that we still need to secure. Through a deal of some kind, apparently. Perhaps we could call that deal some kind of plan of action. Maybe something that's comprehensive?

You mean like a "Joint plan of action"? We tried that once, and it had zero effect. Other than tell the Iranians that if they just waited 15 years they could have a nuke *and* all their sanctions lifted.

No, we want them to agree to never pursue nuclear weapons.

The Administration has voiced different objectives:

It helps to abstract what they're saying up to the proper level: Reduce or eliminate the Iranian regime's ability to project power in the region.

That's it.

ur list is different from both of theirs, since you have 3+4, 5, 6, and 7 (surprisingly, not nukes),

No. The power projection objective covers it all. I think you're reaching here.

My question was how we can possibly think we've achieved our war objectives if we haven't actually prevented them from ever having a nuclear weapon, since that was one of our most important objectives?

This is a bad question. We don't want them to try again.

I don't think they'd sail the navy through the strait. They'd escort the vessels through the blockade. The US Navy isn't going to set up their blockade in the area that's mined - they'll be seaward of that spot.

...which means they have to sail through the mines, collect their vessels, then sail back through the mines and through the US Navy. They aren't doing that.

As for "burning up the phone lines" to get Tehran to cut a deal, that seems unlikely

And yet, they've already done it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/world/asia/chin...

Beijing appeared to have helped push Tehran to accept the two-week deal with the United States, reflecting China’s growing influence and its stake in avoiding a wider war.

That's some fine spin by the NYT, but the reality is that Iran mining the strait slows down Chinese oil imports. It's that simple.

That's why I worry about Chinese-flagged vessels being a potential solution they employ. That ramps up the stakes dramatically.

Sure. They can step in and flag Iranian ships. That would be a hilariously stupid thing for them to do.

So they won't.

Well, that effectively closes the straits, though. If we're not letting Iranian oil through, it's doubtful that Iran will let other oil through - or any of the other cargo that's being held up, like natural gas or helium or fertilizer. That's going to put a lot of stress on the global economy - to say nothing of those "other Gulf states," which we would like to have as allies as well.

erm. the Gulf states are egging the US on. They're DONE with Iran.

It becomes a contest of which side is willing to suffer more punishment. Is the U.S. willing to endure rampant price increases and (perhaps) a worldwide recession bordering into a depression? Is Iran willing to endure the damage to its economy? With leadership in both countries being fairly insulated from political pressure from the people (Iran's not a democracy, Trump's not up for re-election), this could go on for quite a while...

Except if the Navy can clear a navigation channel through the mines. You left out that part.

I think more likely that China is contacting the US and saying if you want rare earths and other critical items, open up the Straights of Hormuz by making a deal.

They may be, but they blinked and called Iran first. See the left-wing safe link upthread.

Apologies, should be Straits not Straights of Hormuz.

Aussi

No, we want them to agree to never pursue nuclear weapons.

That's not correct. They were willing to agree never to pursue nuclear weapons from jump, before the war. What the Administration wants them to agree to is to not have any domestic uranium enrichment program. They don't trust the Iranians to have domestic uranium and simply agree they won't use it for nukes.

It helps to abstract what they're saying up to the proper level: Reduce or eliminate the Iranian regime's ability to project power in the region.

That doesn't "help," because once you abstract to that level it's useless. It doesn't tell you what objectives you're actually trying to accomplish, because "reduce" can mean anything from blowing up a few planes to completely overthrowing the government through a massive ground invasion. If you set an objective that literally can't help but be met with the very first bomb strike of the first minute, then you haven't actually set an objective.

This is a bad question. We don't want them to try again.

It's not a bad question. Sure, it's a question that's uncomfortable for the Administration (and supporters of the war) to answer. But it's still a good question.

If you establish as one of the main objectives of a military operation the prevention of Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon, and you fail to accomplish that through the military operation, then how can you regard the military operation as having already been a success?

We might not want them to try again. But if the military operation doesn't prevent them from trying again in the future, then we can't have already achieved that goal. Which is (again) the criticism that's been levied against this operation from the beginning - you can't bomb a country into not being able to make a nuclear bomb in the future.

...which means they have to sail through the mines, collect their vessels, then sail back through the mines and through the US Navy. They aren't doing that.

No, it doesn't. It means they sail through the U.S. navy, let the tankers sail through the strait (the portions where there aren't mines), and then wait for the tankers to get seaward of the mines again and then escort them out.

The U.S. Navy is seaward of the mines. So escort vessels don't have to go where the mines are to get the tankers through where the Navy is.

Sure. They can step in and flag Iranian ships. That would be a hilariously stupid thing for them to do.

That's not what I'm talking about. They can send Chinese-flagged tankers. They have their own tankers, after all. Send those tankers and see if the US Navy engages with them.

Except if the Navy can clear a navigation channel through the mines. You left out that part.

Because the mines aren't the only issue. They're not even the main issue. The strait wasn't closed because mines are there; the strait was closed because Iran was firing drones and very short-range missiles at the ships going through. They don't need mines. Mining part of the strait forces ships to move to a narrower area, which is helpful if you're defending against warships that will come through even if they have a risk of enemy fire - but it's not necessary to close the strait to civilian traffic, since they won't come through if there's a chance they'll be targeted by drones or missiles.

So, no - it doesn't matter if the Navy does any mine-clearing. And they might not even do that once the cease-fire is over and they'd come under missile and drone fire themselves = they weren't before the ceasefire, after all.

That's not correct. They were willing to agree never to pursue nuclear weapons from jump, before the war. What the Administration wants them to agree to is to not have any domestic uranium enrichment program. They don't trust the Iranians to have domestic uranium and simply agree they won't use it for nukes.


No they weren't. Getting a nuke has always been a priority for them.

That doesn't "help," because once you abstract to that level it's useless.

Only if you don't understand what "power projection" actually means in the context of the Iranians.

But it's still a good question.

It was a bad question. We want them to swear off trying to restart their nuclear weapons programs. Your phrasing is an attempt to restate your point that 'knowledge never dies and there's nothing we can do to stop them from doing anything'. Were that the case we should never open talks with anyone, ever, on a whole host of subjects.

But if the military operation doesn't prevent them from trying again in the future hence the talks in Pakistan this weekend.

No, it doesn't. It means they sail through the U.S. navy, let the tankers sail through the strait (the portions where there aren't mines), and then wait for the tankers to get seaward of the mines again and then escort them out.

LOL. Then who clears the mines for the tankers? Or are there no mines there now?

They can send Chinese-flagged tankers. They have their own tankers, after all. Send those tankers and see if the US Navy engages with them.

And that's the exact same thing. A literal distinction without a difference.
They'll never do business with the Gulf states the same way again.

So, no - it doesn't matter if the Navy does any mine-clearing. The Navy disagrees with you.

No they weren't. Getting a nuke has always been a priority for them.

I think you misunderstand. They were willing to agree to it, so long as they were permitted to retain energy enrichment programs. Getting a nuke might always have been a priority for them, but that has never been an obstacle to them saying they won't have a nuclear weapon.

That's why the Administration is insisting they abandon their energy enrichment altogether, rather than accept an agreement not to have weapons.

If we think they'll honor an agreement not to go for the weapon, then we should have just accepted their proposals in late February before the war. If we don't think they'll honor such an agreement, then we have to insist on no enrichment at all (and abandonment of their current holdings) - which they are apparently not willing to do.

It was a bad question. We want them to swear off trying to restart their nuclear weapons programs. Your phrasing is an attempt to restate your point that 'knowledge never dies and there's nothing we can do to stop them from doing anything'. Were that the case we should never open talks with anyone, ever, on a whole host of subjects.

That's incorrect. Were that the case, we should never start a bombing/aerial campaign against anyone, ever, if the goal is to try to eliminate their knowledge. Which is actually pretty close to correct.

We should have talks with countries all the time. The "knowledge never dies" isn't an argument against talks. It's an argument against the type of war that we launched against Iran, or at least thinking that such a war could accomplish the objective of keeping them from ever getting a nuclear weapon.

Iran is perfectly willing to swear off trying to restart their nuclear weapons programs, and always has been. They've insisted all the time that they're only pursuing energy programs. What they're not willing to do is abandon all enrichment.

LOL. Then who clears the mines for the tankers? Or are there no mines there now?

There are mines in part of the strait - not all of it. That's how the small number of tankers have been able to come in and out, about a half dozen per day, without striking mines. Indeed, unless I missed it, none of the several dozen vessels that have gone through the strait with Iran's permission have struck a mine. The mines were placed in part of the strait to narrow it, and force military traffic closer to the Iranian coast, where it can be more effectively targeted. The civilian traffic won't enter the strait if there's drones or missiles no matter what, because they won't be able to afford the insurance.

And that's the exact same thing. A literal distinction without a difference.
They'll never do business with the Gulf states the same way again.

Why wouldn't they do business with the Gulf states? They're the Gulf states' largest customers. The Gulf states aren't going to be upset if China sends Chinese-flagged tankers to buy oil from everyone, including Iran, notwithstanding the U.S. blockade. Which is what they would do.

So, no - it doesn't matter if the Navy does any mine-clearing. The Navy disagrees with you.

Not really. I was talking about civilian tanker and cargo traffic, not the Navy. The Navy wants mines cleared so it can traverse the strait while hugging the Oman coast, to reduce the risk from shoreline attacks from Iran. Civilian tankers and cargo ships don't care - they're not getting insurance to go in no matter where within the strait they travel.

Iran is perfectly willing to swear off trying to restart their nuclear weapons programs, and always has been. They've insisted all the time that they're only pursuing energy programs. What they're not willing to do is abandon all enrichment.


And they've been lying this entire time.

There are mines in part of the strait - not all of it.

That's the thing with mines. You have to find them as they tend to move around somewhat. The Navy is going to clear a navigation channel wide enough for ships to pass through.

The civilian traffic won't enter the strait if there's drones or missiles no matter what, because they won't be able to afford the insurance.

And yet, some are going through anyway. The US government is quietly insuring the tankers, btw.

Not really. I was talking about civilian tanker and cargo traffic, not the Navy. The Navy wants mines cleared so it can traverse the strait while hugging the Oman coast, to reduce the risk from shoreline attacks from Iran. Civilian tankers and cargo ships don't care - they're not getting insurance to go in no matter where within the strait they travel.

The Navy isn't clearing the strait just for their own travel. No - they're clearing it for tanker and commercial movement.

And they've been lying this entire time.

Which is why if you think that, you can't just ask them to agree not to have weapons, as you suggest upthread. You have to ask them to also abandon their entire nuclear energy program. Which is one of the reasons they can't get to a deal.

That's the thing with mines. You have to find them as they tend to move around somewhat. The Navy is going to clear a navigation channel wide enough for ships to pass through.

There already is a navigation channel wide enough for ships to pass through, which is why traffic never stopped entirely. The Navy might clear space on the far side of the strait (from Iran) so ships don't have to pass quite as close to the Iranian shore - which isn't really relevant for civilian traffic, but is very relevant if we want to move naval resources through.

And yet, some are going through anyway.

Yes, because they got permission from Iran, which made it feasible for them to go through. Which wouldn't be the case if the limiting risk were mines, rather than shoreline attacks. Which is why clearing the mines won't help civilian tankers transit the strait, because they'll still be vulnerable to missiles and drones. Which were the things that were damaging those ships in the first place, not mines.

The US government is quietly insuring the tankers, btw.

No - they've been offering to insure the tankers - with a facility that started at $20 billion. Which went almost entirely unused. Almost no one took them up on it. They recently doubled that to $40 billion, and it's still the same. Because even if insurance is available, the tanker operators don't want to risk the actual physical threat to their vessels and crew, even if they can get reimbursed.:

Missile and drone attacks, electronic interference, and unpredictable transit conditions continue to shape decision-making, with many shipowners unwilling to expose crews and vessels—even with insurance in place.

The absence of naval escorts has further reinforced that hesitation. While U.S. officials have floated the possibility of military support, no escort program has materialized, leaving commercial vessels to assess the risk environment on their own.

https://gcaptain.com/u-s-doubles-hormuz-insurance-...

They don't want their vessels to get hit with missiles and drones. Unless we clear out the Iranian coast, that won't change - whether we clear mines or not.

Which is why if you think that, you can't just ask them to agree not to have weapons, as you suggest upthread. You have to ask them to also abandon their entire nuclear energy program. Which is one of the reasons they can't get to a deal.

The US literally offered to hand them enriched uranium if they wanted to build a civilian reactor.


Yes, because they got permission from Iran, which made it feasible for them to go through. Which wouldn't be the case if the limiting risk were mines, rather than shoreline attacks. Which is why clearing the mines won't help civilian tankers transit the strait, because they'll still be vulnerable to missiles and drones. Which were the things that were damaging those ships in the first place, not mines.

Which means we have a great idea where the mines aren't and can start there.

They don't want their vessels to get hit with missiles and drones. Unless we clear out the Iranian coast, that won't change - whether we clear mines or not.

Sounds like Bridge and Power Plant day get here sooner rather than later plus B-52's visiting their coastline.

The US literally offered to hand them enriched uranium if they wanted to build a civilian reactor.

And after unilaterally pulling out of the JCPOA, it's not a surprise that Iran didn't believe that the U.S. would fulfill that promise. We haven't exactly been willing to live up to our prior commitments lately, which makes it somewhat hard to use new ones in dealmaking.

Sounds like Bridge and Power Plant day get here sooner rather than later plus B-52's visiting their coastline.

Except that's not likely to work. Sure, we can blow up bridges and power plants all day long - those are large fixed targets. But the stuff they use to shut down the straits isn't like that. It's small and portable and can be deployed from anywhere. They don't even need dedicated launch vehicles - these things are small enough to be carted around on ordinary commercial box trucks.

You can't defend against it with air power. You need to send in troops to seize the area.

And after unilaterally pulling out of the JCPOA, it's not a surprise that Iran didn't believe that the U.S. would fulfill that promise. We haven't exactly been willing to live up to our prior commitments lately, which makes it somewhat hard to use new ones in dealmaking.

The JCPOA was stupidity on stilts, a deal designed to make Obama look like some kind of international statesman that he never was. It had an expiration date after which all sanctions were lifted and Iran was free to do whatever it wanted.

<Tony Stark>
Not a good plan.
</Tony Stark>

Except that's not likely to work. Sure, we can blow up bridges and power plants all day long - those are large fixed targets. But the stuff they use to shut down the straits isn't like that. It's small and portable and can be deployed from anywhere. They don't even need dedicated launch vehicles - these things are small enough to be carted around on ordinary commercial box trucks.

Then we're doomed.
Or we could seize a number of the islands that Iran uses including Kharg and make them bomb their own production equipment.

The JCPOA was stupidity on stilts, a deal designed to make Obama look like some kind of international statesman that he never was. It had an expiration date after which all sanctions were lifted and Iran was free to do whatever it wanted.

And then we could have done whatever we wanted. Like reinstate sanctions if they went after a nuclear weapons program again.

You've continually misunderstood the JCPOA. The purpose of the deal was to push out their breakout time. To prevent them from enriching to within a few weeks of weapons grade material and instead keep them at about six months to a year from breakout. That way they were physically constrained from being able to sprint to a nuke without us being able to reinstate sanctions. The carrot for that was to be free of sanctions as long as they stayed very far away from breakout. And they did stay very far away from breakout, until Trump abrogated the deal - whereupon they enriched and enriched so instead of six months to a year away from breakout, they were at two weeks or so. Rather than keep them physically far away from breakout in exchange for sanctions relief (with everyone being free to reinstate sanctions if Iran decided to go back to higher enrichment after the deal was over) Trump decided to rip up the deal so they would race to being within weeks from a nuke. "Not a great plan."

And the point doesn't depend on whether you think the deal was a good deal or the dumbest deal in the world. Trump has shown that he will not honor prior deals. Deals with Iran (like JCPOA), or deals that he himself negotiated (like the NAFTA revisions) - if he doesn't like a past deal, he walks. Which makes it impossible for him to credibly offer Iran enriched uranium for their power program. They know he can't be relied on not to abrogate that deal.

Then we're doomed.

Yes. This is what we've been telling you. The reason that past Presidents never attacked Iran wasn't because they were weak or stupid. It's because the Straits of Hormuz is one of the most war-gamed scenario in the history of the modern U.S. military, and no one's ever figured out a way to win it. Even before things like drones existed, there was no real way to prevent the Iranians from using easily concealable very short-range missiles to harass civilian tankers.

It's becoming clear that the Administration never solved this problem. It's not entirely clear they actually had any clear plan for how they would respond if Iran did the obvious thing and seized the strait. They were obviously aware of that possibly (again, it's one of the most-studied problems in the theater), but it's not clear they had figured out what they were going to do once it happened.

Or we could seize a number of the islands that Iran uses including Kharg and make them bomb their own production equipment.

That wouldn't open the strait. It doesn't solve the problem. They'd prefer not to bomb their own production facilities, but whether they do or not it can't prevent them from attacking civilian vessels transiting the strait.

The JCPOA was stupidity on stilts, a deal designed to make Obama look like some kind of international statesman that he never was. It had an expiration date after which all sanctions were lifted and Iran was free to do whatever it wanted.

The JCPOA is the agreement Trump and Israel wish they could have today, but they can't because once you break such an agreement you can never get it back. Iran still complied with it long after Trump and Netanyahu ripped it up. As for the expiration of the agreement, there were ten years to extend the agreement, or negotiate a better agreement, or to reimpose sanctions if Iran violated the JCPOA. The JCPOA didn't grant Iran permission to do whatever it wanted after 10 years. It simply would have expired, with the assumption that there was enough time to extend it or renegotiate it well within the ten year period.

And then we could have done whatever we wanted. Like reinstate sanctions if they went after a nuclear weapons program again.

So after they'd built a bomb and got off sanctions...we'd reimpose sanctions again. Great plan.

You've continually misunderstood the JCPOA. The purpose of the deal was to push out their breakout time.

No. The deal was fatally flawed as I've pointed out 1000 times before. The point is that Iran as presently constituted should never have a nuclear weapon. The JCPOA at best kicked the can down the road. At best.

And it said NOTHING about their ballistic missile programs. You realize that all the pallets of cash Obama/Biden sent over there were funding that and their drone programs, right?

Yes. This is what we've been telling you. I was being facetious.

Good. Glad one of you just came out and said it, not that I agree with it at all. "We've" been repeating the talking points that CNN and whatever MSNBC has been calling itself nowadays.

As I've explained in the past, the government is focused on China and doing this now means we don't have as big of an Iranian threat at our backs when that kicks off. You're free to disagree - as you will - and that's your opinion.

It's becoming clear that the Administration never solved this problem. It's not entirely clear they actually had any clear plan for how they would respond if Iran did the obvious thing and seized the strait. They were obviously aware of that possibly (again, it's one of the most-studied problems in the theater), but it's not clear they had figured out what they were going to do once it happened.

Or we could seize a number of the islands that Iran uses including Kharg and make them bomb their own production equipment.

That wouldn't open the strait. It doesn't solve the problem. They'd prefer not to bomb their own production facilities, but whether they do or not it can't prevent them from attacking civilian vessels transiting the strait.

The U.S. blockade of the strait will be interesting. What will America do if a Chinese owned tanker loaded with Iranian oil goes through the strait? Will they bomb it? Seize it? What will they do about a Russian tanker, like the one they allowed to go to Cuba? And if they do block everything, how long before we're paying $10 for a gallon of gas in the U.S.?

So after they'd built a bomb and got off sanctions...we'd reimpose sanctions again. Great plan.

No. Under the JCPOA, they had to stay about a year away from having weapons-grade uranium. So if they decided to restart higher levels of enrichment, we could reimpose sanctions again before they built the bomb. The point was to move them physically a year away from being able to have weapons-grade material so that they physically couldn't build a bomb with where they were. Rather than where we ended up once Trump withdrew from the deal - where they were two weeks away from breakout.

Again, Trump's plan was not a great plan.

No. The deal was fatally flawed as I've pointed out 1000 times before. The point is that Iran as presently constituted should never have a nuclear weapon. The JCPOA at best kicked the can down the road. At best.

As will anything that comes out of this war as well. Whatever they agree to, Iran will be able to restart their nuclear program anytime in the future. Trump can't do anything different than what Obama did - push them further away in time from breakout, but not eliminate their ability to start that clock again whenever they want.

And it said NOTHING about their ballistic missile programs.

Do you really think that what comes out of this war is going to be any better? Iran now knows that their missile programs are vastly more effective in protecting their security than almost anything else - their ability to strike regional energy infrastructure was a better defense than their air force or navy. That's likely to be their top defensive priority coming out of this war. Their first step after the 12-day war was to replenish their ballistic missiles back up to about 3K or so - that'll likely be the response here as well.

As I've explained in the past, the government is focused on China and doing this now means we don't have as big of an Iranian threat at our backs when that kicks off. You're free to disagree - as you will - and that's your opinion.

Thanks. Again, honestly, we're likely to have a bigger threat. Iran has seized the strait, which is a vastly bigger strategic threat than anything we've faced from them before. They're almost certainly going to learn the lessons of this war and devote much more of their military resources to missiles and drones. They're vastly more likely to decide that staying just below breakout is a fool's game and instead rush straight to nuclear weapons once this is all over.

designed to make Obama look like some kind of international statesman that he never was.

Dope, you making that statement in light of what an utter and complete disaster that Trump has been as a 'statesman' is downright comical. But then you seem to like inadvertently playing the role of the clown.

That's the thing with mines. You have to find them as they tend to move around somewhat.

Some do…. But not all.

Some sink to the bottom, magnetically undetectable. You need divers, highly specialized detection gear or exploratory subs to find those puppies.

Minesweepers would help.

No. Under the JCPOA, they had to stay about a year away from having weapons-grade uranium.

That’s hilarious. And completely unenforceable. We went over this, you can make a bomb with relatively lower enriched uranium.

They were under zero obligations after that deal sunset.

Do you really think that what comes out of this war is going to be any better?

We’ve done more to knock back their ballistic missiles production than anything in the last 40 years already.

Again, honestly, we're likely to have a bigger threat. Iran has seized the strait, which is a vastly bigger strategic threat than anything we've faced from them before.

Have they, now. We’re in what’s known as a strategic pause right now; we’ll see what happens.

They were under zero obligations after that deal sunset.

And they were under zero obligations once Trump abrogated the deal. Which is why they went from well under even the level of low enrichment for inefficient weapons to getting to that two-week breakout time frame. All breaking the deal did was put us immediately into the sunset that you're so worried about, as far as Iran's obligations were concerned.

Oh, and also the reason I brought it up - it showed that Trump cannot be relied upon to honor agreements. So the offer of enriched uranium for their nuclear power was never going to work, because there's no way that Iran could count on it being honored.

We’ve done more to knock back their ballistic missiles production than anything in the last 40 years already.

So? Once the war ends, they'll be able to rebuild that ballistic missile production. They've got a fairly substantial industrial base to their economy overall, so you're not getting much strategic benefit from doing this.

Have they, now.

Yes, they have.

And they were under zero obligations once Trump abrogated the deal.

So? Only this way the sanctions stay in place. By the way, had Trump kept it the deal would already be largely over. Iran would be fully freed from sanctions right now.

Is that what you want? Do you think they deserve that?

So? Once the war ends, they'll be able to rebuild that ballistic missile production. They've got a fairly substantial industrial base to their economy overall, so you're not getting much strategic benefit from doing this.

Assuming they're still around.

BTW. You keep making the mistake of forgetting that all players in the game get a vote on the outcome. Do you honestly think the rest of the Gulf States are going to stand for Iran closing the strait whenever it wants? Why wouldn't they be talking to any and everyone about building pipelines to avoid it altogether?

So? Only this way the sanctions stay in place. By the way, had Trump kept it the deal would already be largely over. Iran would be fully freed from sanctions right now.

And they would not have 60% enriched uranium. They wouldn't be - or have been - two weeks away from breakout. They would be a year from breakout. Plenty of time to re-impose sanctions if they then restarted their program.

Would I be willing to trade relief from nuclear program sanctions in exchange for an Iran that was complying with what we wanted them to do? Of course. That's the point of sanctions - you want them to change the behavior they're being sanctioned for, and the incentive for making that change is relief from the sanctions. If they stop working to build a nuclear weapon, then you stop sanctioning them. So of course we all want a world in which they have stopped enriching uranium past energy levels in exchange for not longer being subject to nuclear sanctions. Don't you?

BTW. You keep making the mistake of forgetting that all players in the game get a vote on the outcome. Do you honestly think the rest of the Gulf States are going to stand for Iran closing the strait whenever it wants? Why wouldn't they be talking to any and everyone about building pipelines to avoid it altogether?

I'm sure they are. A prospect that will take years to implement and still be supremely vulnerable to missile and drone attacks (hard to protect a fixed structure like a pipeline running through the desert away from all the anti-missile defenses. And probably only an option for Saudi (which already has such a pipeline), since most of the other Gulf States are tiny and don't have enough territory to run a pipeline to anywhere strategically different (where does Kuwait or Dubia or Oman build their pipeline to)?

And they would not have 60% enriched uranium. They wouldn't be - or have been - two weeks away from breakout. They would be a year from breakout. Plenty of time to re-impose sanctions if they then restarted their program.

We talked about this. 60% is enough to make a bomb. A bomb that's much heavier that what the US has, but a bomb nonetheless.

A prospect that will take years to implement and still be supremely vulnerable to missile and drone attacks (hard to protect a fixed structure like a pipeline running through the desert away from all the anti-missile defenses. And probably only an option for Saudi (which already has such a pipeline), since most of the other Gulf States are tiny and don't have enough territory to run a pipeline to anywhere strategically different (where does Kuwait or Dubia or Oman build their pipeline to)?

Pipelines can be protected. And you can build them wherever you want. The Iranians keep sending drones against the Red Sea pipeline and guess what? It's running at 100% capacity.

BTW. Saudi Arabia and Israel have been talking since...2019.

Are the Iranians going to exist in a state of war with their Gulf neighbors for all eternity?

BTW. Saudi Arabia and Israel have been talking since...2019.

On this. The idea is to build a pipeline that exits at an Israeli port in the Mediterranean Sea. With that and enhanced pipeline capacity exiting out the Red Sea, the Strait of Hormuz becomes much less relevant as only Iraq and Iran would need to use it...and if we needed to build something from Iraq out I'm sure that can be arranged.

The Iranians and their western apologists forgot something: If you have a nuclear option, it carries much more value if you leave it as an option. When you fire your nuke off you've got nowhere else left to go.

That's the position Iran finds itself in.

https://gulfmagazine.co/israel-and-saudi-arabia-di...

The idea of a pipeline connecting Saudi Arabia’s vast oil fields to Israeli ports is not new. However, this is the first time in recent years that an Israeli minister has publicly acknowledged ongoing discussions about such a project. The proposed pipeline would likely stretch from Saudi Arabia, across Jordan or other intermediaries, and reach Israel’s Mediterranean coast—possibly through the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline route.

This would allow Saudi oil to be transported to Europe more quickly, bypassing traditional and sometimes risky maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal.

They've been talking since 2019:
Though Saudi Arabia has not officially recognized Israel, the two countries have been inching closer through backchannel diplomacy. In 2017, then-Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz publicly admitted that Israel had “secret ties” with many Arab and Muslim nations, including some in the Gulf.

In 2019, Bloomberg reported that Israeli and Saudi officials discussed the idea of a gas pipeline running from Eilat to the Arabian Peninsula. These early talks laid the groundwork for what could now become a historic partnership, especially following the Abraham Accords of 2020, which normalized Israel’s relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

Dope1: We talked about this. 60% is enough to make a bomb.

Iran did not enrich uranium to 60% purity before the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Pedo Don set this all in motion. He is entirely to blame. Get over it.

We talked about this. 60% is enough to make a bomb. A bomb that's much heavier that what the US has, but a bomb nonetheless.

And they wouldn't have had that. 60% is where they got to after we abrogated the deal. The JCPOA capped the enrichment limit at 3.67%. Far, far, far below the level for a weapon.

So, yes - I would have preferred that Iran not have 970 pounds of 60% enriched uranium, which is the position they would be in had the JCPOA remained in place and been complied with sufficiently that the sanctions would not have been reimposed under its terms. I would prefer that their uranium be only enriched to 3.67%. I would prefer that we be in that situation today, even if the agreement sunsets in a year or two from now, because Iran wouldn't physically have the 60% enriched uranium. And it would literally be physically impossible for them to get to 970 pounds of 60% enriched uranium within the time it would take to reinstitute sanctions, if they decided to reverse course after the deal sunsets.

The Iranians keep sending drones against the Red Sea pipeline and guess what? It's running at 100% capacity.

It is now, since there's a ceasefire in place and they're no longer sending drones. Before the ceasefire, when Iran sent drones against the pipeline they successfully damaged the pipeline - because it's hard to protect it from drones. It's been repaired, but if Iran wanted to damage it again, we probably wouldn't be able to successfully defend it.

Are the Iranians going to exist in a state of war with their Gulf neighbors for all eternity?

Maybe. Probably not literally, because nothing lasts for eternity. But there have been plenty of conflicts that rage for decades and decades and decades without being resolved.

Not really relevant, though. Just because we don't want a state of war to continue indefinitely doesn't mean there's a way to just go in and stop it using just air power, as we've been trying here. A massive Iraq-style invasion could certainly end the current Iranian regime, of course. But if we're going to stay well short of that threshold, there might not be an alternative that would actually work.

..and if we needed to build something from Iraq out I'm sure that can be arranged.

Iraq has a northern pipeline, running into Turkey. Apparently, it is currently idle, due to some snit between the Baghdad government, and the Kurds, through whose territory the pipe runs.

If you were the Saudis, would you be comfortable depending on the good will of luminaries like "Bibi", Smotrich, and Katz to be able to export? I wouldn't be comfortable depending on them for a moment.

Steve

And they wouldn't have had that. 60% is where they got to after we abrogated the deal. The JCPOA capped the enrichment limit at 3.67%. Far, far, far below the level for a weapon.

Hahahahahahahaha. They were secretly enriching uranium the entire time. There's zero possibility they stopped at 3.67% (an oddly specific number).

So, yes - I would have preferred that Iran not have 970 pounds of 60% enriched uranium, which is the position they would be in had the JCPOA remained in place and

Facts not in evidence, counselor. You have no idea if this statement is true or not...and is likely very much not true.

Even if I accept your framing as fact, there would be no restrictions, no sanctions, and they'd likely be pushing past 80% right now. That's the level of enrichment that was dropped on Hiroshima.

It is now, since there's a ceasefire in place and they're no longer sending drones.

Huh? They keep sending drones against it and in fact have been violating the cease-fire. Continually.

It's been repaired, but if Iran wanted to damage it again, we probably wouldn't be able to successfully defend it.

Except that we have. People are raising the Shahed drone to some level of invincibility. It's not. It's literally made of wood and has a lawnmower engine. The new automated .50 cal systems can bring one down using a single round at a cost of $10 bucks.

Maybe. Probably not literally, because nothing lasts for eternity. But there have been plenty of conflicts that rage for decades and decades and decades without being resolved.

Uh, huh. For one, why would the Gulf states sit there and take that?

Not really relevant, though. Just because we don't want a state of war to continue indefinitely doesn't mean there's a way to just go in and stop it using just air power, as we've been trying here.

The war has entered phase 2, where we're using Naval power. The Navy is now running the show. Let's hope the decades of neglect I've documented don't bite us in the a$$.

If you were the Saudis, would you be comfortable depending on the good will of luminaries like "Bibi", Smotrich, and Katz to be able to export? I wouldn't be comfortable depending on them for a moment.

Dollars are the ultimate incentive, and a pipeline that puts the Iranians out of business? That's a lot of dollars.

BTW more tankers are supposed en route to the US Gulf coast to fill up on oil since the Persian Gulf is blocked.

Dollars are the ultimate incentive, and a pipeline that puts the Iranians out of business? That's a lot of dollars.

The Saudis control the east-west line from end to end. There are two choke points at the ends of the Red Sea, but two different players control them. If I were any other power in the area, I would never trust the Israelis to not turn hostile.

BTW more tankers are supposed en route to the US Gulf coast to fill up on oil since the Persian Gulf is blocked.

His nibs brags about that daily. Just keep in mind, for each of those tankers to load, they need to outbid USians for that US produced oil.

Steve

Hahahahahahahaha. They were secretly enriching uranium the entire time. There's zero possibility they stopped at 3.67% (an oddly specific number).

Were they? Do you have a link to any evidence of them doing that prior to us breaching the agreement? Nearly all reports are that Iran was following the JCPOA levels until we pulled out. The "oddly specific" number was chosen because that's the level of low enrichment uranium that is suitable for civilian nuclear energy.

Even if I accept your framing as fact, there would be no restrictions, no sanctions, and they'd likely be pushing past 80% right now. That's the level of enrichment that was dropped on Hiroshima.

If you accept my framing as fact, then your statement is incorrect. If they were free of restrictions and sanctions, they wouldn't be above 3.67% (the threshold in the agreement). Because in order to be free of restrictions and sanctions, they'd have to stay below that level. If they had pushed past that level, they wouldn't be free of sanctions - because the sanctions would be back in place.

Huh? They keep sending drones against it and in fact have been violating the cease-fire. Continually.

Have they sent drones against it during the period of the ceasefire? I hadn't seen that reported. Could you provide a link?

Except that we have.

We haven't. They were able to successfully damage it before the ceasefire.

https://www.enr.com/articles/62818-strikes-damage-...

Uh, huh. For one, why would the Gulf states sit there and take that?

Because they don't have the ability to stop it. Do you think Kuwait or Bahrain or Oman can just tell Iran what to do, or what not to do? If Iran wants to be hostile against the Gulf States, the Gulf States don't have a magic button they can push end those hostilities.

The war has entered phase 2, where we're using Naval power. The Navy is now running the show.

Yeah, you can't overthrow the Iranian government with Naval power, either.

The Saudis control the east-west line from end to end. There are two choke points at the ends of the Red Sea, but two different players control them. If I were any other power in the area, I would never trust the Israelis to not turn hostile.


Why would they turn "hostile"? Eliminating Iran from the global oil market and pumping Saudi oil through Haifa or something is totally in Israel's interest.

His nibs brags about that daily. Just keep in mind, for each of those tankers to load, they need to outbid USians for that US produced oil.

Or we're seeing a permanent realignment in global energy movement. Which would be a good thing.

Again, the problem with having a nuclear option is that when you use it, you don't have it. Iran played their only card and now they have nothing. It's amazing how many people missed that.

If they were free of restrictions and sanctions, they wouldn't be above 3.67% (the threshold in the agreement). Because in order to be free of restrictions and sanctions, they'd have to stay below that level. If they had pushed past that level, they wouldn't be free of sanctions - because the sanctions would be back in place.

That's yet another assumption that gives the mullahs the benefit of the doubt. There's zero possibility they wouldn't be pushing forward full tilt boogie for a nuclear weapon. Only their bank coffers would be full of cash in this case.

Zero.

Have they sent drones against it during the period of the ceasefire? I hadn't seen that reported. Could you provide a link?

Sure
https://www.ibtimes.com/key-saudi-pipeline-red-sea...
Key Saudi Pipeline To Red Sea Hit By Iranian Drone Attack Despite U.S.-Iran Ceasefire Announcement
The East-West pipeline is almost 750 miles long and was the country's only way to export crude after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz

It's at full capacity.
At any rate, I'd rather have my oil go through something I control than something controlled by a bunch of maniacs.

Because they don't have the ability to stop it.

So in your mind Iran just bombs the Gulf states forever and they do nothing about it.

Why would they turn "hostile"?

Because Saudis are not Israelis.

pumping Saudi oil through Haifa or something is totally in Israel's interest.

Why?

Or we're seeing a permanent realignment in global energy movement. Which would be a good thing.

US production cannot be ramped up, overnight, to replace all the crude coming from the Gulf. The result is the USian oil will be rationed by ability to pay. You don't think rising US crude prices will negatively impact the US economy?

Steve

That's yet another assumption that gives the mullahs the benefit of the doubt. There's zero possibility they wouldn't be pushing forward full tilt boogie for a nuclear weapon.

I mean, except for the fact that they didn’t. Right? They’ve had 60% uranium for years, but didn’t proceed to a nuke. They had years under the JCPOA, and didn’t enrich past low levels.

And if what you’re saying is true, then what are we holding out for in Iran? All the Administration wants out of Iran is a *promise* that they won’t enrich their nuclear fuel to weapons grade. If we can’t trust them to keep that promise, and we can’t detect whether they enrich to weapons grade, then what exactly are we trying to get from them?

Sure

Yes, sure. That attack was before the ceasefire went into effect. It’s the same attack I linked to.

So in your mind Iran just bombs the Gulf states forever and they do nothing about it.

Of course not - any more than they were bombing the Gulf States in the decades before we started the current war. Iran had been hostile to the other states, but that hostility was expressed through low level proxy attacks rather than Iran bombing them directly with missiles and drones from Iranian territory. Once the current war is over, I would expect a return to that. And no, the Gulf states do not have a way to just unilaterally stop Iran from doing that.

Iran did not enrich uranium to 60% purity before the U.S. withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018. Pedo Don set this all in motion. He is entirely to blame. Get over it.

May 18, 2018 has been pointed out before, and Trump was grousing before that that he would withdraw. Dope has to know that this, and is just arguing because he's MAGA. Next he'll probably argue that everyone knew they'd been doing 60% for years prior.

What were seeing is Dope defending Trump for shooting the USA in the right foot there, and in the left foot with Hormuz. Shortly we'll be walking on our knees.

Why?

Because it eliminates much of Iran's influence in the region and the Israelis get port fees ($$).

US production cannot be ramped up, overnight, to replace all the crude coming from the Gulf.

Over time more can be brought online.

I mean, except for the fact that they didn’t.

They didn't, eh. Okay.

And if what you’re saying is true, then what are we holding out for in Iran? All the Administration wants out of Iran is a *promise* that they won’t enrich their nuclear fuel to weapons grade. If we can’t trust them to keep that promise, and we can’t detect whether they enrich to weapons grade, then what exactly are we trying to get from them?

We don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. Period. I'm not sure why this is unclear. The administration is offering that in exchange for Iran getting rid of all their nuclear weapons technology that we will give all the enriched uranium for civilian power plants for free.

Once the current war is over, I would expect a return to that.

So then Iran won't be blowing up the Red Sea or theoretical Mediterranean pipelines all the live long day and they can be used to reduce the importance of the Straits of Hormuz.

Because it eliminates much of Iran's influence in the region and the Israelis get port fees ($$).

Why would the Saudis do that, vs loading at the Saudi port on the Red Sea, and pocket the port fees themselves?

Over time more can be brought online.

So US reserves are depleted faster. Trump the most Perfect and Manly would not care, because he's nearly 80 years old. But people 40 years from now may care.

Steve

Why would the Saudis do that, vs loading at the Saudi port on the Red Sea, and pocket the port fees themselves?

Easier to serve their customers in Europe, as a pipeline that sticks out at the Med means shorter transit for tankers. You don't even need the Suez canal (another potential choke point).

The Red Sea terminal is better served for their customers in Asia.

So US reserves are depleted faster.

Bear in mind over time Venezuela also comes back online.

The Red Sea terminal is better served for their customers in Asia.

Who will happily buy every drop the Saudis can ship.

Bear in mind over time Venezuela also comes back online.

And how long would the Venezuelan people put up with being looted by gringos?

And the Saudis still would not be Israelis.

I learned, the hard way, a long time ago, if you give someone a control lever on you, they will use it.

Steve

They didn't, eh. Okay.

Are you suggesting that they already have a nuclear weapon?

They've had 60% enriched uranium for years. Yet they didn't build a bomb with it. And they didn't enrich it to 80% or 90%. Even though they could have done either of those things. Which is why I noted that they didn't push forward full tilt. Unless, again - do you think they already have a nuke? Or 90% enriched uranium?

We don't want them to have a nuclear weapon. Period. I'm not sure why this is unclear. The administration is offering that in exchange for Iran getting rid of all their nuclear weapons technology that we will give all the enriched uranium for civilian power plants for free.

I fully understand what we want. What I don't understand is why you think that what you describe above would get us there, if the JCPOA didn't work.

You're saying that we'll give them as much civilian power plant level uranium as they need. And all they have to do is promise that they won't then take that uranium and enrich it further to weapons grade.

But....that's exactly what the JCPOA said. They could have uranium up to 3.67%, and weren't allowed to enrich it further.

Your criticism of the JCPOA is based on a belief that we had no way of knowing that they were keeping to their agreement (and a certainty that they would not). But the same is exactly true of what Trump wants. If you believe that even with IAEA monitoring (and all our own monitoring and satellites and intelligence) that Iran could somehow further enrich that 3.67% uranium without us knowing, then the same will continue to be true under anything we negotiate today. If they can do secret enrichment - and thus the JCPOA was stupid - then they'll be able to do that once this war is over as well.

That's why I don't understand what it is that we're holding out for if your criticism of the JCPOA is correct. If there's no way of ever knowing for sure that they're sticking to their promise and don't have secret enrichment facilities, why on earth do we care whether they say they're getting rid of all their nuclear weapons technology? We won't ever be able to know whether it's true - so why bother?

So then Iran won't be blowing up the Red Sea or theoretical Mediterranean pipelines all the live long day and they can be used to reduce the importance of the Straits of Hormuz.

If Iran ever wants/needs to close the strait, they can blow up the pipelines then. They don't need to be constantly blowing up the pipelines for the Straits of Hormuz to be their new "nuclear weapon." Just to be able to close the pipelines and the straits at the same time.

Yeah, you can't overthrow the Iranian government with Naval power, either.

Perhaps he is using NAVEL power. Or NASAL power. Or SHAMAN power. Or....

Bear in mind over time Venezuela also comes back online.

Over time, we won't need petroleum products. Use it or lose it? Or it's already lost?

And how long would the Venezuelan people put up with being looted by gringos?

Depends. How rich are they getting at the same time?
I'm always fascinated by left wingers who have access to buying the same stocks that rapacious capitalists buy but instead they sit on the sidelines watching other reap big returns.

And the Saudis still would not be Israelis.

So? Even the Hatfields and the McCoys can come to the table if there is enough mutual interest and in this case, there is.

Are you suggesting that they already have a nuclear weapon?

Did I suggest that? No I didn't.

Yet they didn't build a bomb with it. And they didn't enrich it to 80% or 90%. Even though they could have done either of those things. Which is why I noted that they didn't push forward full tilt. Unless, again - do you think they already have a nuke? Or 90% enriched uranium?

1. They don't need 90%.
2. Are you sure they can enrich to 80%? Do they still have centrifuges for that?
3. They more or less intimated to Witikoff that they could build 11 bombs if they wanted.

I fully understand what we want. What I don't understand is why you think that what you describe above would get us there, if the JCPOA didn't work.

Because the JCPOA was an idiot deal that gave us nothing except a false sense of security for a couple of years (and only then if you didn't really pay attention to the issue).

If Iran ever wants/needs to close the strait, they can blow up the pipelines then.

And the Gulf States get no vote, they're helpless to stop Big Bad Iran from just blowing up all their pipelines whenever they want.

So we and they should do nothing and keep the status quo in place in the Gulf.

Did I suggest that? No I didn't.

Then why are you disagreeing with me? They didn't move full tilt towards a weapon. Else they'd have had a weapon

1. They don't need 90%.
2. Are you sure they can enrich to 80%? Do they still have centrifuges for that?
3. They more or less intimated to Witikoff that they could build 11 bombs if they wanted.

They could have enriched to 80% at any time prior to June. Years and years. But they didn't yet do it.

They might have intimated to Witkoff that they could build 11 bombs if they wanted. But they didn't yet do it.

Because the JCPOA was an idiot deal that gave us nothing except a false sense of security for a couple of years (and only then if you didn't really pay attention to the issue).

But how would anything we get out of Iran today be any different? That's what I don't understand. If the JCPOA didn't work, then how would anything we get from Iran at the end of this war give us anything but a false sense of security?

What Trump is insisting on is a promise from Iran that they will abandon their nuclear weapons program. But what good is that unless we are fairly confident that they can't run a nuclear weapons program in secret? And if we're fairly confident that they can't run a nuclear weapons program in secret, then why walk away from the JCPOA?

They're the same thing. If the JCPOA was an idiot deal, then what Trump is trying to do now is an idiot deal.

And the Gulf States get no vote, they're helpless to stop Big Bad Iran from just blowing up all their pipelines whenever they want.

So we and they should do nothing and keep the status quo in place in the Gulf.

Yes, they're fairly helpless, just like Iran was helpless to stop the U.S. from just blowing up all their stuff. Sometimes you don't get a vote. Sometimes you don't have the defensive capabilities to stop what the other side wants to do.

We shouldn't do nothing in the current situation (doing nothing might have been better than launching this particular war, but that ship has sailed). But we shouldn't assume that a particular solution exists just because we dearly wish it was a solution. With 80% of Gulf oil going to Asia, not Europe, and the defensive liabilities of ~500 miles of pipeline running through mostly uninhabited areas that are nearly impossible to blanket defend against drones and missiles, a Saudi-Israel pipeline is a deeply unfeasible way of reducing the potency of Iran's ability to seize the strait.

They could have enriched to 80% at any time prior to June.

Have you been briefed to the capabilities of their scientists and centrifuges?

They might have intimated to Witkoff that they could build 11 bombs if they wanted. But they didn't yet do it.

The Hiroshima bomb was 80% enriched and weighed 9700lbs (4400kg). Assume modern manufacturing techniques and take 1500lbs out of that. Now you're down to ~8200lbs (3700kg). They don't have a B-29 to deliver something like that.

They could put it on a ship, but that's slow and ports are scanned for radiation. Have been since 9/11.

So that leaves ballistic missiles - the thing the idiot JCPOA was entirely silent on - as the most likely delivery vehicle.

Right now Iran can loft about 1,500kg to ~1,000km in range. Their multistage weapons can only do about 500kg to 6,000km downrange. They have a long way to go.
https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/weapon-...

Thus: No, they're not stopping. They need to develop their ballistic missile capability and make that first-rate first.

But how would anything we get out of Iran today be any different?

We want them to ack that their old statements were lies, get out of the nuclear business altogether, and stop developing long range ballistic missiles.

Ask China how hard it is to build long range rockets that don't land on the next vil over and blow it up.

Yes, they're fairly helpless, just like Iran was helpless to stop the U.S. from just blowing up all their stuff. Sometimes you don't get a vote. Sometimes you don't have the defensive capabilities to stop what the other side wants to do.

Helpless? Hardly. New drone-killing systems are coming online that reduce the cost of waxing a Shahed down to $10 bucks (the price of 1 .50 cal round). They mount on pickup trucks. Can't throw a rock in the Middle East without hitting a Toyota Hilux and the Saudis/others have plenty enough gasoline and cash to pay some dudes to drive up and down the length of the pipeline shooting down drones. Plus the US has excellent radar warning coverage with more on the way.

With 80% of Gulf oil going to Asia, not Europe, and the defensive liabilities of ~500 miles of pipeline running through mostly uninhabited areas that are nearly impossible to blanket defend against drones and missiles, a Saudi-Israel pipeline is a deeply unfeasible way of reducing the potency of Iran's ability to seize the strait.

Yeah, not really. Nobody said that the Asian-bound oil would be loaded in the Mediterranean. Why would it? Just build enough capacity for Europe's needs. For Asia expand the capacities of the Red Sea pipelines.

One way or the other, the Iranians are done. They finally tugged hard enough on Superman's cape and now they have his attention. And by "Superman" I mean that as a euphemism for a United States/Israel/Gulf Coast State multibody, politically aligned (on this issue) group of nations.

While the original treaty wasn't ideal, it did accomplish its goal of putting the brakes on their enrichment program. Since the Felon broke that deal, there has been very little to slow them down.

At this point, I wonder why people think Iran should give in to us. Their military is shattered, sure. But they still have the ability to strike, as they are doing. Their regime remains, despite attacks upon it. What would be their motivation to give us anything we want? And why would they think the Felon would hold up his end of any bargain?

It's problematic, but I think we probably will simply have to go home. Unilaterally disengage and leave. Before they manage to launch a strike and claim "we drove Satan away". Right now, they can't claim that.

We want them to ack that their old statements were lies, get out of the nuclear business altogether, and stop developing long range ballistic missiles.

But again - how does that solve the problem of them getting a nuclear weapon?

Again, the JCPOA was an agreement to keep them from developing a nuclear weapon. It accomplished that by providing that their enrichment would not exceed 3.67%. Regardless of their ballistic missile capabilities, as long as they did not enrich uranium beyond 3.67%, they couldn't get a nuclear weapon. Sure, it would have been a bonus if the JCPOA might have also addressed ballistic missiles - but that wasn't the point of the agreement. We didn't have sanctions for ballistic missiles, and there wasn't an international consensus on keeping Iran from having ballistic missiles - the purpose was to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb. The JCPOA was a good deal, and would have worked to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.

Your belief that the JCPOA would not have prevented them from getting a nuclear weapon appears predicated on a corresponding belief that Iran could have violated the terms of the JCPOA without us knowing about it. That they could have enriched the uranium beyond 3.67% without being detected. If they couldn't do that, then the JCPOA was an effective mechanism for preventing them from getting a nuke - or if they violated the agreement, they would have been caught, the sanctions would be back in place, and we would have had the same situation that existed when Trump pulled us out.

But if they could do that, then anything that Trump does now to try to get them from obtaining a nuclear weapon will suffer from the same problem. If they can develop a nuke in secret, then giving them a bunch of free uranium based on their promise not to enrich it to weapons grade is just as idiotic as the JCPOA. Right?

Nobody said that the Asian-bound oil would be loaded in the Mediterranean. Why would it? Just build enough capacity for Europe's needs. For Asia expand the capacities of the Red Sea pipelines.

Then it doesn't really mitigate against Iran's ability to use closing the strait strategically. Very little Hormuz oil goes to Europe - only about 4%:

In 2025, nearly 15 mb/d of crude oil, nearly 34% of global crude oil trade, passed through the Strait of Hormuz – with most of the exports destined for Asia. China and India combined received 44% of these exports. IEA countries import about 29% of the crude oil coming through the Strait, with Japan and Korea particularly reliant on oil flows passing through the Strait. Around 600 kb/d, or just 4%, of the region’s crude flows are routed into Europe.

https://www.iea.org/about/oil-security-and-emergen...

Not enough to matter, and certainly not enough to warrant actually building a separate pipeline.

But again - how does that solve the problem of them getting a nuclear weapon?

So no deal on Earth is going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. That's what you're arguing. Curious coming from someone so in favor of the JCPOA.

Then it doesn't really mitigate against Iran's ability to use closing the strait strategically. Very little Hormuz oil goes to Europe - only about 4%:

4% matters. Add up all the couch cushion change and pretty soon you have real money.

Not enough to matter, and certainly not enough to warrant actually building a separate pipeline.

Every bit that can be diverted from the straits of Hormuz is a good idea.

So no deal on Earth is going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. That's what you're arguing. Curious coming from someone so in favor of the JCPOA.

That's not what I'm saying.

If they have the ability to develop a nuclear weapon in secret, without anyone being able to detect them, then no deal on Earth will be able to constrain them from getting a nuclear weapon. Monitoring will be completely ineffective. But that would mean that Trump's proposal for the end of the Iran war would be just as idiotic as you claim the JCPOA was, since Iran could simply agree to his terms, get all the sanctions released and their funds unfrozen, and just run out and build their nuclear device in secret (with the uranium we give them for free!).

You need that predicate to be false for Trump's proposal not to be idiotic. It would have to be true that Iran can't actually hide uranium enrichment above power plant levels, that if they were moving towards a nuclear weapon rather than energy use we'd be able to detect it. That would make Trump's proposal not idiotic - but it would also make the JCPOA not idiotic as well.

That's my point. If Trump's proposed end state for the Iran war isn't idiotic and just a "false sense of security," then the same was true for the JCPOA - they both rely on the exact same thing to prevent Iran from being able to get a nuclear weapon, namely that Iran can't completely evade detection if they convert from civilian nuclear energy to moving to weapons.

4% matters. Add up all the couch cushion change and pretty soon you have real money.

Unless there isn't any real money in the couch cushions.

It's just 4%. It's not enough to justify building a pipeline to Israel. Especially when you already have the pipeline to the Red Sea, which can then be used to ship oil directly through the Suez Canal or through the Sumed pipeline to Alexandria. There's no economic case for it, and no security case for it - it's too small a flow.

no deal on Earth is going to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon.

Explain, in detail, how Spankee's FAILURE--to stop Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon--was a success.

Iran has been incentivized to build them sooner, not later. Typical Spankee screw-up.

Good analysis here:
When the history of this war is written, it will be recorded that the regime’s decision to close the strait was a colossal miscalculation that relied too heavily on short term consequences (a hike in the price of oil, coupled with the belief that nations would unite against us rather than them). In chess, there is a famous quote to the effect that the threat is always stronger than the execution. Here, the threat to close the strait was stronger, especially with Trump and with countries in Europe and the Far East. The decision to close the strait was never going to work as long as we refused to budge. And it has greatly weakened Iran’s position.

https://x.com/KenGardner11?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ct...

So far the blockade per Centcom is going well and 0 ships made it through. 34 ships transited the strait in total.

The same point applies to Iranian attacks on energy structure and desalination plants. Once they went beyond mere threats to actual attacks, they weakened their position and strengthened our resolve and those of our allies.

Now everyone fully understands the risk of the regime’s ability to blackmail the global economy on top of all their other shit. The Gulf states now understand the folly of hoping that the alligator would eat them last, and are now working on a closer alliance with U.S. and Israel.

I don’t know how much longer this war will last. But don’t bitch at me when I say that we have had a clear strategic plan from the beginning and that it is playing out. Once we decided that Iran was not going to surrender immediately, we decided to begin the death grip with the blockade. The rest is now a matter of time, patience, and persistence.

In chess, there is a famous quote to the effect that the threat is always stronger than the execution. Here, the threat to close the strait was stronger, especially with Trump and with countries in Europe and the Far East. The decision to close the strait was never going to work as long as we refused to budge.

I wonder what that author would say if asked to apply that "threat is always stronger than the execution" to the decision to start this war. The U.S. had been threatening to attack Iran, and had brought them to the bargaining table in late February. Apparently the negotiations then had been productive, until the Administration decided to execute the threat rather than make it.

But then once we executed the threat, it became clear that we could not actually destroy the regime by air power and they had ways to fight back that would make it hard (nigh impossible) to keep them choked off for a very long time. Because Iran was able to close the strait and use missiles and drones to damage the energy infrastructure in nearby states, global energy prices spiked to levels that can't be sustained without global recession.

And did they really have any choice but to close the strait once we attacked? The threat of closing the strait is the deterrent to try to keep the U.S. from attacking. After we attack, it's too late for it to be a threat. Once we attack, you have to follow through with the consequences so that we can't keep attacking for very long. You can't "threaten" again that if you attack us, we'll close the strait.

I don't know. If the decision to close the strait was never going to work as long as we refused to budge, then a decision to threaten to close the strait was never going to work either. So closing it becomes the better choice. I don't think they get a ceasefire if they haven't closed the strait.

Pakman posted a piece, echoing other pundits, that Vance is being thrown under the bus. I would suspect that, as Trump the Glorious and Divine, snuggles with fundy whacks, Vance's mixed race, mixed religion, and supposed Catholic faith, are becoming liabilities.

Rubio hosted a meeting between Israeli and Lebanese ambassadors in DC. The ambassadors agreed to meet again, somewhere, sometime. I can't tell if the bar was set low enough for the event to be deemed a "success", as opposed to Vance's failure. Interestingly, while Rubio was raised Catholic, he also attends a Southern Baptist "mega church" in Miami. I don't know if that would be enough to pass muster with the fundy whacks, to clear his promotion to VP. Mike Johnson appears to have pure fundy whack credentials, and, to my knowledge, has never been accused of thinking for himself, vs parroting Trump the Most Divine.

Steve

But don’t bitch at me when I say that we have had a clear strategic plan from the beginning and that it is playing out.

Using Occam's Razor, etc., I'd have to say that the clear strategic plan is indistinguishable from an ad hoc poorly planned effort, and the simplest answer is that's what it is. Hanlon's Law says when looking at a clusterfuck choose stupidity, not malice, so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were winging foreign policy at the whims of Trump and Netanyahoo. Hey, the bomb everything and 'nuke em till they glow' folks are on your side and you can convince them that there's a plan, but not us. It looks very much like we've got an economic shock coming at us and I hope people realize that and it's priced in. Tell em to come up with a difference in the agreement y'all can claim is much better than the Obama deal and get us out of this mess. Just what the fuck are you doing?

It's about time someone stepped up to these blackmailing Mullahs and put them in their place.

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.