Iran watch: does the administration understand what they’re dealing with? [scroll down for UPDATES]
Commenter “Oldflyer” wrote a little while ago about Iran:
We have very smart people running this show. I worry that smart people can be dangerous if they do not understand the fight they are in. Robert McNamara and his Whiz Kids were smart. Too damn smart to listen to people in uniform apparently. Likewise, Colin Powell and Richard Armitage were presumably smart, as was Gen Petraeus. They all underestimated the enemy’s resilience and the complexity of the environment.
It makes sense to be concerned. What’s going on in terms of tactics and strategy? Is Trump feinting, is he bluffing, is he confused, is he flailing? What you see isn’t necessarily what you get. But maybe it is. One of the drawbacks of his desire to not telegraph his plans to the Iranians is that he doesn’t telegraph them to the American people, either.
There are certain constants in the message, however. One is that Iran can’t be allowed to have a nuclear bomb and must surrender its highly-enriched uranium. Another is that traffic must flow through the Strait of Hormuz without game-playing and toll-taking. Yet for this entire time, the administration has not said the Iranian government must fall, although they’ve made it clear they would like for that to happen.
I pay a lot of attention to what Marco Rubio says, even more than what Trump says. It’s not that Rubio is in control – he’s not. But his messages are more clear. For example, here’s what Rubio is saying today:
Talking about whether an imminent strike on Iran is possible in an exclusive conversation with NDTV’s Vishnu Som, Rubio said he would not “characterise it in terms of a timeframe.”
“I would say that what’s happening now cannot become the status quo and it cannot go on forever. At some point, there has to be a resolution to this problem,” he told NDTV.
The top US official reiterated that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon”. …
Speaking on the issue [of the enriched uranium], he claimed that it can be removed easily from a technical point of view but Iran has “refused to even discuss it”. …
This problem needs to be solved one way or the other. We would prefer it be through diplomacy, but it will be solved one way or the other,” the US Secretary of State said.
We all yearn for regime change, but the administration isn’t focusing on that and never has. My guess, for what it’s worth – and I’ve said this quite consistently – is that Trump and company don’t think regime change will happen as a result of the war unless it was some sort of totally destructive war that would wreck the possibility of the people of Iran having any sort of foreseeable viable future, and the US doesn’t want to go that far. The idea seems to be to let Israel try to work on that after the pressing problems of the uranium and the Strait are solved, if in fact they can be solved. If not, there will be an escalation of the war. And still another idea is that regime change, if it does happen, will not happen soon even if these things do happen.
I’ve seen people also question whether this administration is aware of the apocalyptic vision of the Iranian leaders, their fanaticism, and their desire to cause chaos and conflagration in order to bring about the Mahdi’s return. My answer is “yes.” At least, it’s “yes” regarding Rubio, and I think we can safely say he has communicated this perception to the rest of the people in charge, if in fact they didn’t know it already.
Rubio referred to this even before the war began. Remember back in February, when people were getting frustrated that nothing seemed to be happening, and peace talks were occurring? Here’s Rubio back on February 16, 2026:
“Doing a deal with Iran is not easy. I said it yesterday, I’ll repeat it again today,” he said. “We have to understand that Iran ultimately is governed, and its decisions are governed, by Shia clerics, radical Shia clerics. There people make policy decisions on the basis of pure theology.
He added that while Washington long acknowledged the difficulty of negotiations with Tehran, the United States would continue to try.
What’s more, Rubio has been very aware of the situation since as far back as 2015, when he made the following speech. I’ve cued up a very short but telling excerpt:
That’s pretty unequivocal. Rubio gets it, and he got it over ten years ago.
UPDATE 5:40 PM:
Legal Insurrection has posted this message entitled “BREAKING: Trump Says Iran Deal Near, Hormuz to Reopen.” As I read it, there are two points. The first is that nothing has been settled, and it may indeed be that, like so many other supposed agreements, this one won’t be finalized. The second is that it seems to involve opening the Strait of Hormuz but nothing else has been specifically mentioned. The supposed agreement could include more, but that’s not at all clear. Trump lists a bunch of countries involved in the negotiations.
This makes me very very nervous. I am trying to be patient and ignore rumors – rumors of a type we’ve heard before, which include the idea that Trump is giving the Iranians all sorts of concessions. But we just don’t know, and we don’t even know if this deal is really going to go through or not. It’s very nerve-wracking.
UPDATE 12:20:
Here’s a NY Post story reporting that Iran has agreed, as part of the deal, to give up the enriched nuclear material. No way to know whether this is true or not, but here’s what it’s based on:
Tehran has agreed to a statement pledging to relinquish its cache of highly enriched uranium — believed to be enough to build 11 nuclear bombs — the New York Times reported, citing two American officials.
That nuclear material has been a major sticking point. Time will tell if this report is accurate, and what the details might be.
It’s a fool’s bet to assume Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing or who the Iranian leaders are or what their strategy is.
However it is a complicated situation with a lot of moving parts. I would argue the next phase is trickier, now that we will be moving into dual-use targets, not just military, which can do considerable damage to Iranian resources for post-war life in Iran. It’s not WW II. For instance, we would much prefer not to destroy Iran’s oil production.
Plus there are now other countries getting involved, for better and worse, such as the Gulf states, whom we don’t wish to alienate too much. Now they are concerned about Iranian missile attacks on their oil production.
That said, I will be disappointed if we don’t see some resolution this week — mostly likely the resuming of military operations.
On the one hand — as objects of understanding for our leaders — we have the long regnant Shia supremicism coupled to their “revolutionary” political zeal, theologically driven once, yes, where perhaps now outweighed by motions of internal power politics. These, I believe, can be reasonably well characterized (and are, for the most part).
On the other hand — again as potential objects of understanding — we have the very dark machinations of the aforementioned power politics itself, with uncertainties pertaining to who is active (i.e., not incapacitated, injured, or dead); what governing functions such actors hold; what decisions they can make or not make; what do they control (for now); how these remaining political actors vie or contest with one another to retain or to seize these powers, and etc. Such things, such relationships, may be extremely difficult to pinpoint on our goverments’ part where these self-same relations may be unknown even to those IRI political actors themselves as their situations shift beneath their own feet. So this arena, I believe, may not be so well understood by our leaders, and no wonder at that.
Still, I’m not in much doubt that every effort feasible is undertaken to reach a clearer understanding of these uncertainties about the Iranians on the part of or on behalf of our own decision-making officials.
This report was posted 20 minutes ago.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/05/breaking-trump-says-iran-deal-near-hormuz-to-reopen/
I think the answer to the IRGC is to maintain the blockage. Yes, Iranians will (continue to) suffer, but so it goes.
I just saw that also, Kate. Since there’s no mention of the U235, just the Strait, I take it as Iran got exactly what they wanted, and this whole adventure has been a complete waste. Well played, IRGC. They made fools of the US again, and will live on to build or buy a nuke later. Can kicked down the road.
I hope a line on the ege of
the Iranian shore was made because they will not abide by any agreement for long is my guess.
If a deal on Hormuz is reached, I want to see the terms, particularly what Iran gets.
Would a separate deal on Hormuz be such a bad thing?
I don’t believe Trump will bend on the Iranian nuclear program and the enriched uranium.
I don’t see how you can say it’s a complete waste without even seeing the details, physicsguy. For those who wanted the action to result in regime change, this will be a big disappointment. As I understand it, the U235 is buried under rubble and efforts to get it and use it are going to be very visible to surveillance. At least 70% of Iran’s military might has been destroyed. Its ability to finance terror proxies is severely degraded. We now see a re-ordered Middle East.
We should at least wait until we see what this “deal” contains before despairing.
I do sympathize with the feeling that we should have just blasted Iran back to the stone age, as Trump once said. I don’t know if that was the best option, all things considered. And, we don’t know what ongoing efforts, possibly undercover, Israel will make to bring down the remaining regime.
I added this UPDATE:
Legal Insurrection has posted this message entitled “BREAKING: Trump Says Iran Deal Near, Hormuz to Reopen.” As I read it, there are two points. The first is that nothing has been settled, and it may indeed be that, like so many other supposed agreements, this one won’t be finalized. The second is that it seems to involve opening the Strait of Hormuz but nothing else has been specifically mentioned. The supposed agreement could include more, but that’s not at all clear. Trump lists a bunch of countries involved in the negotiations.
This makes me very very nervous. I am trying to be patient and ignore rumors – rumors of a type we’ve heard before, which include the idea that Trump is giving the Iranians all sorts of concessions. But we just don’t know, and we don’t even know if this deal is really going to go through or not. It’s very nerve-wracking.
Kate,
True, details are lacking. But the actions of the last 7 weeks have shown me to be highly skeptical of this whole “negotiation” process.
I also wonder to whom Trump is mainly listening and who he’s trusting (if anyone): Witcoff? Rubio? Vance? The Saudis? And is Trump’s ego calling to him, saying he’s the big dealmaker and should be able to accomplish this? I haven’t a clue, but as I said, it’s very nerve-wracking. Rumors are flying, and most of them are not describing something that sounds good. But they are rumors.
Heh, if there were rumors flying around making Trump look a brilliant genius, we’d all know we’ve crossed over into bizarro-backwards-land.
As it is (more of the same Obamabros’ op-style JCPOA buggery) I think we can wait for substance over thrills and spills of the moment. “Op” being the keyword when it comes to “reporting”.
I think Trump misunderestimated the 12 ers, bitt off more than he could chew and is now choking on it. Rubio is just trying to make the best of a bad situation.
If he gets the straits open bfd ,straits were opened when this started. At this point we don’t know what is happening with the uranium . The nuclear program is delayed not ended. If the 12ers wanted to they could put a dirty bomb on Temple Mount or Demona so why haven’t they? We are dealing with Persians here ,not a bunch of Arab goat humpers. Persia has been at this for thousands of years . This will not end well.
The 96 Hour Rule doesn’t apply to The Twelvers. Is it 96 Day Rule? I don’t know.
I do know that BHO’s brain trust isn’t in charge so there is hope.
I am not going to light what’s left of my hair on fire.
Pray and try to remain calm.
And our isolationist pays homage to the Persians, while spewing about the Arabs. But at least he forgot to crap on Israel. The Straits of Hormuz and world oil prices are not a consideration to our isolationist economist?
Stupid on stilts doubles down.
This has never been just Trump vs the Mullahs/IRGC. We have to consider the possibility that we’ve gone as far as the Gulf states are willing to go. Without their support (or acquiescence) we can’t sustain combat operations. Regime change was never one of POTUS’s demands. Our failure to ensure safe passage for international shipping meant it was only a matter of time before something had to give. Leadership requires tough choices. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s war on US will likely continue with degraded capabilities and the realization that we know a lot more than we did about their leadership’s pattern of life. I would have preferred that more IRGC/Basij had been dealt with but perhaps something else is in work for that problem. The Abraham Accords made the operation possible.They just may not have allowed our preferred outcome.
Initially, I thought Trump was channeling his inner Sherman, and I was happy. Now he looks much more Iike McClellan.
I tend to agree with crasey @6:46.
Plus, if we want to win the midterms, we must have gas prices back down. If we lose the midterms, the results for our country could be disastrous. America First, remember? If the mullahs and the IRGC survive and pull something, we can obliterate them in January.
A cascade of gunshots were heard outside the White House on the Penn. Ave side, causing reporters delivering reports from there to dive for cover, and lockdowns into effect indoors. The scene is crawling with Secret Servicemen, police vehicles and ambulances. No idea what went down, but it can hardly be good.
Suspect approached the perimeter, near the Eisenhower office building, and opened fire. Secret Service responded. Suspect taken to hospital.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15843861/Secret-Service-springs-action-gunshots-heard-outside-White-House.html
Selina Wang:
https://x.com/i/status/2058312115098697760
Video clip at link, gunshots sound in background.
Om you really got a hardon for me don’t you. Oh well.
NY Post reports a single gunman fired 3 shots and was neutralized by a barrage from the Secret Service.
https://nypost.com/2026/05/23/us-news/white-house-on-lockdown-after-dozens-of-shots-fired/
I asked before the start of the conflict if any government has been overthrown by an air campaign alone, without ground forces.
I’ve heard that Mossad’s plan included using the Kurds as that ground force. That was quickly squashed by both the US and the Persians in Iran. But they were the only force with the capability of opposing the IRGC.
I was looking for the possibility of a coup from the Artesh, and I have heard of conflicts between elements of the Artesh and IRGC, nothing that even remotely approaches the coordinated effort necessary to topple the Islamists. That may still be an option, were it not for the tightrope the President is forced to walk between strangling the Islamists economically and oil prices global oil prices. The blockage of Iranian oil is probably the most effective tool to topple the regime. I assume China is supporting the Islamists but how long could/will China “prepay” for the oil Iran is unable to get out of the Strait?
Someone mentioned shipping the oil by land, but it would take 25 trains with 100 tanker cars to equal one VLCC ship– which holds about 2 million barrels of oil. Even if Iran had the rail capacity, it’s unlikely they have the capability to load that many trains/tanker cars a day from an inland terminal.
Eventually, the economic stranglehold will produce the coup that can’t likely be precipitated by more bombing. I would guess that at least a couple of the Gulf states would shut down our access to our bases on their territory if we resume a bombing campaign.
From the beginning, the Gulf states said they wanted a weakened Iran, not a secular Iran. From the beginning Trump said the US goals were not regime change, but eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons threat and their ballistic missile capability. While at some point we may get the uranium out of Iran, there is no way to prevent them from rearming without regime change. We need a Manhattan style project to perfect a laser defense that can defend against a barrage of ballistic missiles.
Our military planners are facing a new strategy from actors like Iran, where they have weak defenses, but use their offensive firepower to create a condition of chicken– who is willing to suffer the most damage. Iran has shown to be the winners of that strategy at this point.
“Iran has shown to be the winners of that strategy at this point.”
That’s a bit too far, I think. The whole point of the second round of bombing kicked off Feb. 28 was to preempt Iranian ballistic missile overmatch, which has been accomplished to date. While the Iranian ballistic missile stockpile is not totally destroyed now, with varying estimates of the remaining count running from 20% to 30% or thereabouts, the production facilities and capabilities are now close to nil. So the feared condition of overmatch is caput. That isn’t the same as the damage the remaining stocks can do to Gulf States infrastructure, whether energy related or worse, desalination waterplant destruction. It’s easy to grasp that given their druthers the Gulf States would prefer no further destruction if there’s any alternative. And, y’know, there may not be any alternative. But no, Iran hasn’t won a damned thing yet beyond a little time. Time isn’t ultimately on their side.
Iran doesn’t have to win folks ,all they have to do is not lose. Can Iran do without money longer than portions of the world can do without energy and food ? Do you think that the regime in Iran gives a damn if the people suffer. If thousands die who cares ,,,Inshalla .
The US/Israel have to win,, can’t win without a ground war. And that may not do it.
What is it about isolationists that leads their minds into the sewer?
“Incels will soon be the master race?”
The Persian shill. First it was the poorest buying weapons for Israel. Now it is the world’s poor starving for the US and Israel. How do the poorest buy oil? That wouldn’t, couldn’t be foreign aid.
Stupid on stilts.
Losing is not wining and wining is only what Persia says it is.
Good, but I wouldn’t trust the Iranians.
BREAKING: President Trump has summoned his entire national security team to the White House for a meeting about Iran.
@GeneralMCNews
??????- BREAKING: President Trump announces a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran has been largely negotiated and is being finalized and will be announced shortly.
“Can Iran do without money longer than portions of the world can do without energy and food ?” – Keith
I think your question is faulty. There is no evidence that rising oil prices will lead to food shortages in the short term. Prices for ag commodities will rise, but it will take a complete growing season before any effects of high oil prices might affect global food supplies leading to regional shortages.
But can Iran survive without money from the blockade and other economic tools making it harder for money to be funneled to the regime before global oil shortages start causing real economic disruptions, possibly a global recession at some point.
A 5%+ sustained global shortfall is the rough tipping point from inconvenience to broad disruption. At 10%+ (current situation scale), it becomes a significant economic event with recession risks if it lasts multiple quarters. Markets are resilient with alternatives and adaptations, but vulnerabilities remain in import-heavy regions.
So, it’s likely the last quarter of 2026, when the shortages could lead to recessions.
The bigger issue in the US are the midterms. Americans have become increasingly short tempered/short sighted.
I have added another update:
Here’s a NY Post story reporting that Iran has agreed, as part of the deal, to give up the enriched nuclear material. No way to know whether this is true or not, but here’s what it’s based on:
That nuclear material has been a major sticking point. Time will tell if this report is accurate, and what the details might be.
@Keith: Iran doesn’t have to win folks ,all they have to do is not lose.
Maybe it’s not that simple. Maybe Trump has hurt that Iranian leadership hard enough that they are going to say uncle.
Maybe Trump has been close to a deal. Maybe he has not been strung along and maybe he has not been stringing us along.
Maybe the Keiths of the world will be happy to be wrong.
This morning, here’s what’s in the agreement from Newsmax. Iran gets their money, and can sell oil while the nuke material is a 60 day “under discussion”. For me, it’s a big win for Iran. IRGC stays alive, has money, and “promises not to pursue nukes (what a crock!) while continuing enrichment etc is “discussed”. I hate to say it, TACO.
I hope someone here can convince me that this is somehow a good deal. I’m willing to listen. Believe me, I would never vote D in the midterms, but at this point I’ve lost most of my trust in Trump.
“60-Day Cease-Fire Framework
The draft agreement establishes a 60-day cease-fire that could be extended by mutual consent.
During this period, direct military escalation would pause while negotiations continue.
Reopening of the Strait of Hormuz
Iran would reopen the Strait of Hormuz with no tolls or restrictions on shipping.
Tehran would also remove naval mines reportedly deployed in the waterway to restore free commercial passage.
Iran Allowed to Resume Oil Sales
In exchange, the U.S. would ease its blockade on Iranian ports and issue sanctions waivers allowing Iran to freely export oil again.
Nuclear Negotiations Continue
Iran would commit to never pursuing nuclear weapons and would negotiate over suspending uranium enrichment and reducing its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
U.S. officials say Tehran has already provided verbal commitments through mediators regarding possible concessions.”
Cruz and Graham not on board:
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-897082
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
I am just as skeptical of sources on “our” side as I am of leftist sources. I will wait until I see something official.
“Smarts” (academically or otherwise) have zero to do with having common sense.
Just look at Cyrus Vance, Jake Sullivan, Susan Rice, Antony Blinken, etc.; all grads of top schools , but foreign policy morons.
Individuals of high intellect can always come up with a rationale to justify their opinions or justify any policy they propose / support (like sending – by plane – in cold hard cash, a few billion $$$$ to Iran). They have the brain power to do so.
Not surprisingly, Orwell said it best; “some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual can believe them.”
Here is another example of an outrageous (and incredibly stupid) view point spouted by an intellectual, an “expert.”
The Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, praised the economic policies of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez (Maduro’s predecessor).
Yep, the Chavez that totally destroyed the economy of Venezuela.
Iran will keep its nuclear material
Iran will get reparations ~20 billion
Iran will remain in control of Hormoz
Gas prices will remain high
Any agreement that gives Iran time and money to reinforce their ability to protect their nuclear capabilities is idiotic.
Trump should stick to skating rinks.
Let’s see straits get open
Iran still has its bomb material
Iran gets billions
I would say that is at least Iran not losing
Status quo anti.
According to this YouTube short, Trey Yingst, a frequent Israeli Fox commentator, says that the Memorandum of Understanding, to be signed today or soon, “will lay the groundwork for a broader deal” which will address nuclear weapons, nuclear production and the enriched uranium.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a3qC6mVc12E
So we’ll see.
However, Trump has planted his flag so firmly on “Iran cannot have nuclear weapons,” I don’t see how he can back down even if he wanted to.
Ret. General Jack Keane keeps saying, “Trump will not take a bad deal.” I agree.
I hope Keane is right, but right now I feel a bit like JK Simmons at the end of Burn After Reading
https://youtu.be/fBoqMMPoU9k
Persia always wins, says our “isolationist.”
It ain’t over till it’s over.
It appears that perhaps Oldflyer’s concerns can be moderated substantially, if he is willing to take instruction from all this new information our fellows bring, so reevaluating his first premise — “We have very smart people running this show” — and simply recognize that’s manifestly incorrect, as those “running the show” are most certainly one and all abject morons! No worries! Problem solved!
Four months ago I said that if this isn’t played right the mullahs will emerge from this stronger than ever before. If the terms of this deal are anything close to those being reported, this wasn’t played right. This wasn’t played right at all.
1) This deal keeps the mullahs and the IRGC firmly in control of Iran. After killing 35,000 protesters, the regime has swept away all effective internal opposition. The people may hate the regime more now than ever, but that doesn’t matter. Opposing the regime now just leads to torture and death.
2) This deal gives Iran de facto control over not only the Strait of Hormuz but also the entire Persian Gulf. It has now been proven that America can neither force the Strait open nor protect the Gulf states from Iranian missiles and drones. That makes Iran, not America, the dominant power in the Middle East.
Yes, America has the military and financial resources to force open the Strait, but under this president it refuses to use them. That weakness is on display and has been noticed throughout the region.
3) Ending the blockade of Iranian ports will allow Iran to crank up its import of drone parts from China. Before this campaign Iran was building 100 Shahed drones a day. Expect that number to dramatically increase. Because our top military brass has never taken the drone threat seriously — dismissing them as toys — and because both Trump and Hegseth publicly rejected Ukrainian help with counter-drone systems (actually mocking Ukraine over the offer), those drones are now the dominant force in the Middle East. They shouldn’t be, but they are.
4) The easing (ending?) of sanctions combined with the $25 billion release of frozen assets is not all that different than the pallets of cash that Obama sent the mullahs.
5) With Iran getting most of what it wants up front and America getting only a promise to talk later about what it wants, America has given all leverage in the negotiations to Iran. Iran doesn’t really have to agree to anything.
I suppose it’s possible that the real deal is wildly different than what is currently being discussed, but after the last seven weeks, I wouldn’t count on it.
PS: Physicsguy: The link in your post at 8:57 am produces a pop-up that mimics an iOS pop-up saying “Are you sure you want to download ‘sync’?” Looks like malware to me.
I have nothing to add except wait and see. The nervous Nellies and the steely-eyed missile men have laid it all out. On to the next crisis. Cuba.
Best part about drone warfare is they are cheap (for some definitions of cheap). Everyone in the gulf can afford to play. Then maybe we can leave and make it a local problem.
@mkent:The link in your post at 8:57 am produces a pop-up that mimics an iOS pop-up saying “Are you sure you want to download ‘sync’?” Looks like malware to me.
I don’t get any pop-ups from that link, which is just Jerusalem Post, but these things are often system and browser dependent.
Sorry about that. It was just a link to Jerusalem Post. Maybe Neo can delete it as I can’t now.
Never forget the basij and the IRGC to some extent are non-persian ( they have no where to go, but they have the guns).
I see contradictory things on the internet. Seems like the negotiations are still complex and hard-fought therefore inconclusive. The idea that Trump is going to cave on nuclear weapons and cash seems to be from Iranian hard-liners.
Trump’s latest I’ve seen today:
______________________________________
‘Deal not fully negotiated,’ says Trump; slams Obama regime for giving Iran ‘massive cash and a clear and open path to a nuclear weapon’
“If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama, which gave Iran massive amounts of CASH, and a clear and open path to a Nuclear Weapon. Our deal is the exact opposite, but nobody has seen it, or knows what it is. It isn’t even fully negotiated yet. So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about. Unlike those before me who should have solved this problem many years ago, I don’t make bad deals!” he said.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/us-israel-iran-war-live-updates-donald-trump-news-ceasefire-strait-of-hormuz-iran-peace-talks-middle-east-conflict-petrol-diesal-price-hike-latest-news/liveblog/131272301.cms
______________________________________
I stil; don’t think Trump is going to make a bad deal.
those pop up happen in the oddest places
as my friend clarice points out in her roundup, those who are least in the know are most confident, and those in the know are not talking,
she has some acquaintance with intelligence and lack of same,
the line is to the effect ‘did we learn anything from this, events after that film, suggest it may be the optimum view of intelligence, which is a disturbing thought,
then you look at the likes of john brennan and avril haines and you think that is probably so,
the papers are full of supposed leaks from intel sources one suspected joe kent, but hes been long out of the picture, so I think they are just making things up,
I expected this would go much more pearshaped as the Brits would say, the fact it hasn’t and there has been some rather strange reactions is a little puzzling
I still don’t think Trump is going to make a bad deal.
I still have faith as well. I just wish it didn’t feel so much like faith.
Amen, Mike Plaiss.
Mike Plaiss, physicsguy:
I understand. But even when I am feeling cynical, it’s simply true — Trump has chosen this hill to die on.
If he declares victory and backs off, it will be the laughingstock of his presidency, it won’t help him in the midterms, and it may even doom him there.
huxley:
Beyond the national security aspects President Trump and his administration must be fully aware that should the Democrats win the 2028 election they all will be thrown in jail for the rest of their lives by whatever means the Democrats can conjure.
No matter what actually happens with Iran, oil, or enriched uranium.
And of course the lawfare will extend to family members. Pretty high stakes, almost as high BHO facilitating Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Valerie Jarret is of Iranian extraction IIRC.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that we get almost nothing in actual information about anything going on in foreign affairs. The legacy media has given up any ability to gather facts and report them; they just get communications from leakers with axes to grind, press releases from activists, earned media marketing, and propaganda from in and out of government. And of course they just copy each other.
Good example was the nonsense a couple weeks ago about Iran, Russia, and the Caspian Sea, as if the US military has no maps, as if Israel hadn’t already shut down those ports and shipping back in March while touching base with Russia about what they were doing. No one was talking about it, until they all started talking about it, but that didn’t mean nobody was doing anything about it. And now it’s all forgotten as though it had never been raised.
Or how people think that because Trump is distracted by the Iran war he’s not doing border enforcement anymore. That’s not true at all. It’s that legacy media moved on to something else and all the talking heads follow along. Illegals are still being rounded up and deported. Even in Minnesota.
And this is why Iran is not making sense to us. It’s not that it doesn’t make sense. It’s not that Trump and Netanyahu and their people don’t know what they are doing. It’s that we can’t get real information anymore and we all grew up in an era where we expected to have real information. It’s just a bunch of people talk-talking and copying each other.
“…I think it’s worth bearing in mind that we get almost nothing in actual information about anything going on in foreign affairs….”
Amen. Those kinds of thoughts always remain first principles in these kinds of matters. Not to mention, the disloyal opposition always finds it useful to whipsaw the Court of Public Opinion in order to destroy any signs of political support from the voters. Like, for example, announcing that a deal is just around the corner by misrepresenting statements, and then emphasizing failure when their own phony predictions don’t come to pass.
I’ll believe it’s over when I see news of a signed deal.
— physicsguy
If you wanted Sherman/Truman style ‘get in and settle it’, you had unrealistic expectations. Trump cannot channel Sherman or Truman under current political conditions. Nor can anyone else.
Heck, Truman was only able to do the ‘get it done’ approach until Japan surrendered, then the Cold War began and things went back to normal. America engaged in a number of halfway wars between 1865 and 1939, as well.
This is normal. This is what most wars, most of the time, look like. Hemmed in by domestic politics and geographical and financial realities, by the willingness of allies and other states to cooperate, by how far cooperating states are willing to go, etc.
I’m well aware that the American majority is Jacksonian in outlook, and absolutely hate this sort of half-measure, three steps forward two steps back, ‘1 out of 3 ain’t bad’ sort of warfare, and sort of international relations. But there’s no escape from it.
Most of the time, Sherman’s hands are tied.
That said, as I said a few days ago, I don’t think Trump is flailing, and I don’t think he has a brilliant secret 9-dimensional-chess plan. Neither do the Iranian leaders (whoever they actually are at the moment, nobody is sure). Both sides are making this up as they go along, and trying to work out the least bad result they can manage.
— mike plaiss
The question is not ‘good deal’ or ‘bad deal’, it’s ‘What is the best possible/least bad deal that can be achieved in the real world?’
The answer to that is we simply don’t know. But Trump has to operate with various hard constraints in his maneuvering. The best possible outcome may turn out to be unsatisfactory. In fact, it probably will feel unsatisfactory, because such is the way of the world.
So the issue is: ‘can Trump produce something that is good enough, if a good outcome is not possible?’
— Niketas Choniates
Amusingly, Newsweek appears to be trying to goad Trump into doing something along those lines now.
— Niketas Choniates
Not just them. Every information source has an agenda. Left or right, nationalist or globalist, secular or religious, they’re all spinning. Which is not always the same as lying. But even a report that is 100% factually accurate will have a ‘spin’ to it, either in terms of how it’s presented or what is left out or both.
Some are more or less trustworthy than others, but there simply isn’t any such thing as ‘unbiased objective reporting’. Never has been, never can be.
HC68:
Excellent analysis of the situation.
Slight apology, I made an error when I said Newsweek was trying to goad Trump, it was CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/24/politics/trump-immigration-policies-mass-deportation
The substance of the report is actually fairly even-handed for the most part, and they admit that Trump is still pushing his immigration agenda along as a good pace, as Niketas Choniates mentioned upthread. But the timing and the headline look to me like an attempt to:
1: Goad Trump, and or 2: Buck up casual Dem readers who don’t go into the details.
Ah yes, the old “Trump’s a reckless war-monger” / “iiiitttt’s TACO time (AGAIN)” trick!
(Kinda’ reminds one of the “Bibi’s a reckless warmonger” / “Bibi’s a chickenshit” trick…)
So which is it?
Does the TRUMP administration understand what they’re dealing with?
OR…
Does the MULLAH administration [such as it is] understand what they’re dealing with?
…Or both?
* Bonus…heh…
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/427554
Naim just asking to get the spring surprise like nasrallah isnt he
As tony badran my authority in these matters has pointed out the lebanese armed forces are practically a militia for hezbollah
Yes they are more fickle than sibyl
I still have mcmullin on watch
I didnt see why kristie had to go part of a sacrifice play in this game of fizbin
Batya seems to running out of clever writers
Unwavering Trump supporter Amaryllis Fox Kennedy torpedoes WAPO for—unsurprisingly—getting her story all wrong.
“Departing intelligence official blasts Washington Post article as ‘hogwash,’ says she supports Trump”—
https://justthenews.com/accountability/media/departing-intelligence-official-blasts-washington-post-article-hogwash-says
Who needs AI to screw up the facts when you already have the corrupt—uber-hallucinating—media?
@HC68: The question is not ‘good deal’ or ‘bad deal’, it’s ‘What is the best possible/least bad deal that can be achieved in the real world?’
Disagree.
In this case a good/bad deal isn’t a matter of horsetrading, but of Iran’s acceptance of Trump’s primary requirements — (1) No nuclear weapons program/no enriched uranium (2) Open the Straits of Hormuza under international law.
Especially, absolutely, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.
It seems to me possible that this piece by Saul Sadka may help some folks here think about what’s going on. It isn’t and doesn’t pretend to be the whole story, but is a refreshing step back to look at the more salient aspects of the deal-making, cloudy though they may be: https://x.com/i/status/2058701256533622970
The opening lines:
Read it all to see
sdferr,
Interesting article. And I understand all of its points. However, we have:
“Trump has set a final offer on the table with his minimum demands while pointing a gun at the IRGC’s temple: “Sign or die.” ”
And we’ve seen this same scenario of “final offer” multiple times for the past 7 weeks with no “sign or die” result happening. So why believe it this time? The Iranians just keep stringing it out.
The essential problem is anxiety about the future and panic whores in the media that feed that anxiety. They earn a living feeding anxiety.
It takes a while to paint your foe into the final corner.
om,
It’s not so much the media as for now almost 8 weeks, Trump keeps saying there’s a final deal and they better take it. By always laying out an “utimatum” and then letting the Iranians, and also the Gulf States delay such, doesn’t lend confidence after time that any deal is real.
Eight weeks, not every war is The Six Day War.
President Trump has opponents in the media, in Europe, in Congress, in BHO, and in Iran. Being Calvin Coolidge part deux isn’t an option.
“President Trump” not just “Trump” is for CC™-R.
— Huxley
I agree that that is what we want. But what if that is just not possible under the current political/international situation? I don’t know if it is or not.
“Scott Jennings Explains Trump’s Patient Iran Strategy“—
https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2026/05/24/scott-jennings-explains-trumps-patient-iran-strategy-n4953210
Reading Barry’s link about Jennings, as I’m going along there I find myself unbidden thinking “thanks be we don’t have women making these decisions”. So rude, yeah, I know,
@HC68: I agree that that is what we want. But what if that is just not possible under the current political/international situation? I don’t know if it is or not.
Trump has been repetitiously clear that, if not, we go to military force until we get what we want.
When it comes to Iranian nuclear weapons, Trump won’t compromise. Like I said, this is the hill Trump has chosen, if necessary, to die on.
I just put up a new post on the subject. See this.