How the NY Times presents the negotiations with Iran
If you can get access to the Times, you can find the original here. If not, you can find a copy here.
The headline is “In Pakistan Talks, Iran Saw a U.S. Trying to Dictate, Not Negotiate.” The paper seems to be intent on presenting Iran’s viewpoint. A sample:
Vice President JD Vance summed up the failure of 21 hours of negotiations with Iran in one sentence: “They have chosen not to accept our terms.”
To Iranian officials, that line reflected their biggest problem with the talks, too: The United States they argue, had not come to negotiate.
“Bingo,” Javad Zarif, the former foreign minister who led Iran’s negotiators in the nuclear deal negotiations with the United States and Europe in 2015, highlighting the comment from Vance, wrote on the social platform X. “No negotiations — at least with Iran — will succeed based on ‘our/your terms.'”
This is very much designed to appeal to the left – Trump and Vance the bullies, as opposed to the kindly Obama of the famous Iran Deal. How dare dictatorial Trump and Vance! – say those New Age Iranian regime leaders, always trying to find common ground and consensus.
More:
“We are open to dialogue and negotiation,” Medhi Tabatabei, a deputy to Iran’s president, wrote on social media on Sunday. “But we do not submit to force.”
No, of course not. So very open to that favorite term of the left: dialogue. And force is such an outdated concept. The Iranian regime itself not only doesn’t submit to force – but it never uses force either, right? Just ask all the protesters it has treated so kindly.
More:
Iran’s government sees itself not only as victorious for having survived that onslaught, but also for having emerged with a new and strategic card. Since the war began, it has asserted control over passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping corridor — and it is not willing to give up that leverage now.
“We will not stop for a moment in working to secure the achievements of the last forty days,” Gen. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s speaker of Parliament and the head of the negotiating delegation, wrote in a statement on social media on Sunday.
It’s not willing to give up its leverage. But I don’t think the US is asking if it’s willing any more. And what is “new” about this strategic card?
Of course, Iran may have more tricks up its sleeve to thwart the US. But to speak of securing “the achievements of the last forty days” sounds very Black Knight indeed. But much of the world, and I assume many of the Times’ readers, seem willing to buy this narrative.
Pathetic, and delusional on the part of the Iranians. The country’s power and transportation infrastructure only stands because the US and Israel have elected (so far) not to destroy it. I do prefer the current plan to starve the fanatic elites out by reducing their income $13 billion a month, the loss of the exports. If the Israelis have any ideas on how to get weapons into the hands of the non-fanatic populace this would be a good time to do that.
Sneaky, sneaky!
(Or should that be, “Subtle, subtle”?)
Or is it merely (sigh) that the NYT is lying again? And not very well…at that
(Though it’s always possible that in the case of lying, quantity will always trump quality—just ask Slick Joey Goebbels—at least until the Russians arrive at the gates of Berlin, as it were…)
Here’s something that would appear to clarify what the good guys have been—and continue to be—up against, that is, if intense, multi-level, ideological insanity can be adequately explained. Still, Marc Weizmann does a superb job: his impressively historical account (focusing on the post-WWII right, mostly in France) of the all-encompassing planned and plotted confusion, subversion, perplexity-mongering and crisis-creation does seem to ring true; though the author’s description of the weaponization of meta-paradox, at the article’s conclusion, left me scratching my head…though that nigh be the whole point of the dangerous game…)
“The Paranoid Prophet of Loserdom;
“Why high-level members of the American right are drawn to Alexander Dugin”—
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/alexander-dugin-paranoid-prophet-loserdom
H/T Powerline blog.
Sounds like a good plan Kate. I’m with Kate.
Oh, and go ahead with the killing Ghalibaf, Aragachi et al, getcha a new set of negotiating partners while demonstrating that revolutionary Shii Islamic fervor doesn’t pay. Deaden them, do it today,
I suspect the IDF know where they are, sdferr.
The Iranians keep expecting Trump to regress to the mean of previous Presidents. Trump may be mean, but he ain’t average!
I heard someone interviewed today who was comparing Trump’s negotiation with Obama’s for the dreadful Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The interviewee mentioned that at one point during the JCPOA, the head Iranian negotiator stomped out of the meeting and John Kerry literally ran after him!
No wonder the Iranians think they can push America around.
I’m reminded of Grant to Alexander Stephens (at least in the movie):
Alexander Stephens: If we’re not to discuss a truce between warring nations, what in heaven’s name can we discuss?
Ulysses S. Grant: Terms of surrender.
huxley:
In his book, Trump said you always have to be willing to walk away.
I guess the Iranians read it but Kerry didn’t. 🙂
Keep up the pressure and they will surely capitulate.
“What are you going to do? Bleed on us?
Come back and fight!”
Coconuts sounds fading into the distance
This is what will happen.
Our blockade will cut off the money to the IRGC regime.
The IRGC and regular army won’t get paid.
The regular army will take out the IRGC. Civil war. Both sides have guns.
The IRGC will lose.
The regular army will do the unconditional surrender. Ceremony on the USS Gerald Ford.
@ huxley and Mike Plaiss – the combination of your comments fits my POV.
Putting together some of the posts I read over the week-end, my scenarios is this:
1) President Trump sent his team to discuss the terms of Iranian surrender.
2) He called it “negotiations” so that the Iranians leading the discussion could save face and acquire some legitimacy at home and abroad, because it appears that they are the head of the civilian government (the IRGC may or may not be parties to the party).
3) Everyone should have known going in that he would give them a few of the points on whatever their list was that the public hasn’t seen, as long as they capitulated on the nuclear points he wanted, and maybe a few others; I haven’t seen any real credible reports of what the give and take entailed.
4) The Iranians defaulted to the game plan huxley outlined. That was also mentioned in a post by someone that I can’t remember now, but that author was more specific about the details of how Iranians got used to US presidents blustering, then backing down (DACO*). In that pundit’s view, the Iranian negotiators didn’t read the room right.
5) Iran, by continuing to demand that they should be the ones controlling the Hezbollah-Lebanon-Israel affair, wants to have things two ways: they have continually insisted that they don’t run Hezbollah as their proxy, but now they also insist that Hezbollah has to be given a “win” if the US wants Iran to keep negotiating.
How does that compute?
6) IMO, they could probably have gotten some help from Trump on Hezbollah IF they had taken his, ahem, “hint” that the nuclear surrender was his primary objective, but I won’t insist on that one – Donald and Bibi certainly seem to be copacetic on most things these days.
Everyone agrees that the French don’t have any say in the matter any more.
7) The Iranians really don’t have any cards left; they bluffed; and Trump didn’t fold — so they lost the hand (or “face”). He is not going to stop pounding until they give up all nuclear ambitions, but now they don’t get any concessions in return.
*Democrats Always Chicken Out — I note that their TACO meme, despite it’s prevalence in the Regime Media, doesn’t move a lot of outrage meters: people actually like tacos!
Hmm, brings to mind The Fifth Element, Anyone else want to negotiate?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TyxxLHfBwE
Some of the posts supporting my scenario.
See also Trump’s posts on Truth Social that Neo linked in the Round-up.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116392449978703637
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/04/10/trump-and-iran-speakers-remarks-on-negotiations-n2201170
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/04/12/iranian-response-to-trump-action-in-strait-n2201218
DACO, DACO, DACO — they Left can’t decide what it really wants.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/04/08/yesterday-was-probably-the-most-insane-anti-trump-leftists-have-acted-since-2016-yesterday-n2674085#comment-6860834462
(comment deliberately linked; scroll up for the post)
Then, they believed Trump was about to drop nukes all over Iran, which was followed by some far-fetched Google lawyering from Hill Democrats claiming that striking bridges and power plants was a war crime. It’s not. Also, who cares? We’re going to bomb whatever we damn well please if necessary.
Then, when Trump agreed to a two-week ceasefire to work out a long-term deal, maybe the Left accused him of being a coward or losing to Iran. Folks, you can either think Trump is a crazy guy who’s going to nuke Tehran, or he chickened out — it can’t be both:
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2026/04/09/lebanon-to-iran-butt-out-n3813723
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/little-lost-mine-saturday-april-11
I don’t drink coffee, I think I had COVID before it became fashionable, and I have added C&C to my “must read daily” list.
No wonder I never get everything done around the house!
Bonus on Iran’s “forever war”:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/josephchalfant/2026/04/12/this-new-poll-on-iran-is-eye-opening-n2674322
You may think you hate the media, but they hate you more.
https://twitchy.com/brettt/2026/04/11/martina-navratilova-wants-to-know-why-the-airman-rescued-in-iran-isnt-all-over-the-media-n2427047
No Democrat ever met a conspiracy theory he/she/zit couldn’t love.
The Twitching continues:
The Twitchers fire back:
There are rational answesr to Martina et al.
And she meant that sarcastically.
I just came back in the house after doing yard work. Not my favorite thing, but necessary. It put me in mind of America’s forty-seven year history with the islamic terrorists whom Carter allowed to take over Iran. Like yard work, it would have been much easier to deal with the islamic weed infestation when it first took root, or to take steps to prevent it from taking root in the first place. It would have taken some effort, of course, but it could have been done in short order. After ignoring the problem for so long, pulling a few dandelions here and some creeping ground ivy there is simply unavailing and probably does more to spread the weeds than eradicating them. The only solution once the weeds have taken over is to douse them with RoundUp, kill them all off and start fresh with good seed in properly prepared ground. Trump may not be a gardner, but he knows how to deal with a weed infestation. I suspect that the second spraying of RoundUp is being prepared right about now, unless he sees that the weeds have been killed off.
Trump understands a simple principle; in a real world fight with a fanatical, mortal enemy… once they’re on the ground… you don’t let them get back up.
AesopFan:
I guess the Iranian regime were playing along with the hoax when they announced they’d shot down a plane.
“Trying to dictate, not negotiate”
Just like those unfair negotiations we had with Japan on the deck of the Missoui …
Since, happily, the airmen were rescued and have not died, identifying them publicly is not necessary. Maybe they’ll turn up at next year’s State of the Union speech. If so, the groups who rescued them should also be honored.
I would feel better about Trump had I not seen the post on his yes, HIS, TRUMP’S, Truth Social site likening him to our Lord Jesus Christ in a most repellent, cartoonish way that dishonors them both. That is the essence of Trump vulgarity, and I do not like vulgar, even if the source stands for my political desires.
He is not a normal person.
It’s funny, but the series of foreign press articles that I read painted the Iranians in a very different light. The Iranians kept saying that the US had quite a distance to go to earn the trust of the Iranian delegation. The ‘earning of trust’ concept was aired a number of times, and emphasized, as if the US had somehow done something wrong and needs to make amends.
I thought it was quite bizarre, but then, these are Iranians. They are stubborn, face-saving, implacable arguers. They’ll argue out of sheer perversity, for the pleasure of arguing. ‘Earn their trust’?? Sorry to hear you’re uncertain about our commitment to the process. How about a few more sorties, will that do it? How about some more unplanned staff reductions in the senior executive ranks?
So I’m not surprised it hasn’t borne fruit. I think it’s provided a great opportunity to change the oil, service the machinery, reload, re-supply, and deploy more reinforcements, and I feel quite confident this is what has been happening.
If this round of negotiations has stalled, then it means they don’t accept defeat. Proceed. Sorry to sound so bellicose, but when the end is out there, and it’s clear we haven’t reached it yet, then the journey continues. The US has made very good progress and has shown that many key objectives have been satisfied, but the persistent Iranian claim to nuclear ambitions and the insistence to retain any enriched material is also showing we have not accomplished the principle goal, a peaceful Iran that is willing to be a good neighbor.
I will never ever open a link to anything the NYT publishes. Period.
I believe Cornhead’s prediction has a strong likelihood of success, entailing no additional kinetic action unless the regime takes aim at the US Navy ships. Then its Katie bar the door.
My guess is that Trump didn’t want to negotiate at all, and he was right to feel that way, but Vance convinced his boss to let him have a go. Then when Vance reported no progress after 21 hours, Trump told him to come home. Trump’s first instinct was right. We have been negotiating with these fanatics for years.
Furthermore, once you agree to negotiate with an enemy of America, you are simply opening the door for the Media and the Democrats to jump in to help them, as we are now seeing.
I’d love to see the NYT do a piece about Iranian naval mines… an “in depth” piece if you know what I mean!
The Bee’s inside look at the Iran negotiations:
https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/2042059925078352122
Trump’s post of a cartoon of himself as Jesus was in poor taste, true. Which reminds me of a story about Lincoln, who was known to joke in poor taste from time to time himself:
Trump, I am afraid, is a package. Not only is he somebody finally willing to deal with Iran as it deserves and should have been dealt with long ago, you also get Jesus jokes.
@ Neo > “I guess the Iranian regime were playing along with the hoax when they announced they’d shot down a plane.”
It never ceases to amaze me how a conspiracy theory causes its believers to compartmentalize information.
(1) CT: Believe the Iranians!
(2) Iran: We shot down a US plane.
(3)CT: Don’t believe the Iranians.
(1) CT: Trump’s gonna nuke Iran! Woe, woe!
(2) Trump: I decided to have a ceasefire.
(3) CT: Trump’s not gonna nuke Iran! Woe, woe!
(1) CT: Believe all women!
(2) (pick the woman of your choice indicting a Democrat the Left supports (for now))
(3) CT: Don’t believe that woman!
@ Wendy > The Bee never disappoints.
I could get behind the Minnesota deal, although it looks like we might be able to keep California if the Jungle Primary goes right.
@ Ray > “I’d love to see the NYT do a piece about Iranian naval mines… an “in depth” piece if you know what I mean!”
ISWYDT.
@cornhead – What does it say that Trump’s policy goals in Iran poll in the high 70’s, but his personal approval on the matter is in the low 40’s? People can tell the difference between laudable policy goals and how well they are being implemented.
And now he’s picking a fight with the Pope and tweeting a blasphemous image of himself as Jesus? (Thank goodness for small miracles – at least he had the basic decency to lie about it later and claim that he thought he was portrayed as a doctor.)
Trump is a problem. I strongly suspect that the smarter members of the Democratic party are beginning to realize that impeachment next year is not in their best interest. It would be better for them to allow Trump to keep doing what he’s doing for another two years. (It may not matter given their base.)
Re: negotiations – it’s all about leverage. With Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz, most of its military infrastructure already destroyed, and Trump unwilling to put boots on the ground or destroy civilian infrastructure or oil infrastructure, Iran held all the leverage. They were willing and able to hurt us by closing the Strait and they knew we were unwilling to do anything further to them. This is almost certainly why the Iranian delegation was feeling their oats and talking about the US gaining their trust. Kudos to Vance for not pretending to reach a deal and being honest about the Iranians’ position. The new Hormuz blockade by Trump is an attempt to shift the balance of leverage.
One potential challenge I see is that China would love to bleed us out in Iran the same way we’re bleeding Russia in Ukraine. China will be taking a hit from the stoppage of Persian Gulf oil, certainly. If will be interesting to see what, if anything, they will do to prop up the Iranian regime and for how long. Trump needs this whole thing to work quickly so the global price of oil doesn’t harm the US economy.
Mercy, what a moron.
> why isn’t he being interviewed on every news channel?
When has a member of the military _ever_ been interviewed on TV in a similar situation?!
Perhaps these people are thinking of folks like Terry Anderson, but they were civilians.
What a risible maroon – CC™-R.
Blockade Iranian tankers and ships you moron.
Those aren’t f-en “boots on the ground.” Iran without any money and China without any oil will change their attention.
What a dunce – CC™-R
Iran with a nuke is a world changing problem, maroon.
om, I consider being called a maroon by an illiterate like you to be a badge of honor. If you could actually read, you would note that I wrote Trump is NOT willing to put boots on the ground. Suggesting that I equated the Hormuz blockade with putting boots on the ground is absurd. This is not the first time you’ve failed basic reading comprehension in your haste to call me names.
om and sdferr – Neither of you have any substantive criticism of what I wrote. You’re much like Trump in that ad hominem is all you’ve got.
CC™-R:
Blah, blah, blah, TRUMP!!, Pope!!!, BLASPHEMY!!!, blah, blah,blah.
You could really use a boot, but not on the ground.
You forgot TACO in your talking point/script.
Maroon.
@Bushehr Bauxite
So Bauxite begins rattling about “substantive criticism of what” Baghdad Bauxite wrote. Which sounds an awful lot like my cue.
Stop while you’re behind. Whether it was your claims that the New York Real Estate mogul that personally worked on multiple construction sites had no concept of long term timeframes (I might have to dig up the actual quote and link it) or your childish claim that any Republican candidate would have a better chance than Trump in the election before Trump won the largest electoral conservative victory in about a quarter of a century, we have already established your understanding of the actual Trump is beyond subpar and your predictions stemming from that have been awful. It has gotten to the point where Neo has called you out for that multiple times over. Your hatred of Trump is beyond irrational and stupid and makes you so. Others such as Niketas Choniates have pointed out how mendacious and dishonest you have been trying to memory hole things like the arguments and rationales Trump have made, and while I will never claim Trump has been the very best and entirely consistent in pushing his claims and arguments he definitely has far more than ad hominem.
Ironic given how you lean more and more on them as time goes on.
Oh but I imagine you will complain about my detailing your proven track record of screw ups and failed conclusions and straw men will also amount to an ad hominem and not amount to a substantive criticism. Mkay, that’s what I will get to now.
Similar to what similar effects are on many other, similar divides like on affirmative action, and NATO funding. Because like I pointed out to you with how Obama’s personal favorability ratings were vastly higher than those for his policies in large part due to media glossing, personal assessments about the personality and media coverage can distort the relationship about how we assess personality and policy even though personnel is policy. This has held true even on policy fronts that are generally considered to have been executed well, such as
on immigration.
Moreover, contra to what you are going to say, it is notable that Trump’s favorability ratings have not only generally been holding steady but have shown modest upticks over time, in contrast to the generally downward trend Obama had and that most a presidents have had. You aren’t going to mention this because it undercuts your claims, but it is something that even much of the MSM have noted. Go on, pick your set of polls on the matter.
We’ll be waiting.
https://www.facebook.com/NBC4Columbus/posts/while-president-donald-trumps-approval-rating-is-holding-steady-the-conflict-cou/1414419477398967/
https://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/donald-trump-congress-policy-republicans-polling
Only up to a point. But the divides show how people have a disconnect between personalities and policies, and this is proven every day someone falls for the “swap Biden/Trump quotes while attributing it to the other.”
I realize “Useful Idiot Trolling Gaslighter” has long since taken up residence on your business card, but even you or a basic chronology should point that the Pope picked a fight with Trump, not the other way around. Indeed in general Trump took pains up to this point to avoid directly clashing with the Pope and to delegate most of the prior rebuttals to Vance, who did so gently by things like talking about St. Augustine’s hierarchy of love. Years of that led to little avail and now saw the Pope open up on this complete with borderline or actual blasphemy disregarding things like the Just War theory.
I can object to how Trump and Vance responded or think they could have been handled better, but the fact shows that Trump did not pick this fight, he had it picked with him. And your attempts to claim otherwise further underline how mendacious and unreliable you are.
Methinks you seriously misunderstand the nature of blasphemy almost as badly as you misjudge the general proportion of the people who will be seriously turned off by this. By that “logic” the Babylon Bee engages in blasphemy almost every day. In contrast to the Pope outright upturning thousands of years of doctrine on the Just War.
Yes yes yes, we know he is a problem, or several. Especially for you. But what you conveniently choose to ignore is that he is also one of several possible problems, many of which their own or different ones. Ones you have a proven track record of failure when accurately calculating and adjusting for, hence nonsense like how he was the only hope the Dems had to win 2024.
But you want to know who else is a problem, Bushehr Bauxite? Backstabbing bastards who are happy to regurgitate enemy propaganda – whether from the MSM or the freaking Iranian Mullahcracy – in order to smear others to try and get ahead. I had issues enough of that when Trump engaged in Iraq War Trutherism and still do, and you have been remarkably consistent in that as well. Someone quite willing to lie about who picked which fight with who on the Pope’s latest misadventure has told us what they are like, and how they are willing to chuck timelines out the window.
I strongly suspect your ability to guess what is and is not politically advantageous is utterly warped and compromised by your inability to assess reality as separate from your preferences. I also strongly suspect you undervalue the benefits of an impeachment push for unity among the Dems and as a talking point, especially since it will almost certainly fail like every other impeachment and also allow them to try and recruit support from the NeverIsrael Paleoisolationists and “Libertarian” useful idiots like the Paul Clan so they can shout “Bipartisan Support!” In the effort.
One suspects that buy in and credibility also have something to do with that.
We went over this before. Your own source from Lloyd’s of London admitted that at least 30% of the ships crossing with their transponders on did so in open defiance of Iran and without its approval and that more are doing so without them on. I provided some sources on some of those. Claiming Iran is in control of the Strait is almost as tortured as the latest political prisoners in IRGC control, even before the USN began parking destroyers with their transponders on in the middle of the Strait and serious clearance operations beginning.
Of course pointing out this FACT led you to name calling be as equivalent to Baghdad Bob, apparently seeing no way that uncritically aping a totalitarian regime’s obviously bogus propaganda and the greater alliteration could boomerang on you. But that’s part of why you are Baghdad Bauxite and Bushehr Bauxite.
More questionable, but in serious disarray.
Is he? And how would we define “boots on the ground”?
If we are talking about the physical presence of US military forces on land in Iran, then we did so with the construction of a temporary base in Iran as part of the WSO rescue. That was obviously temporary but it is still worth noting. He is obviously RELUCTANT to commit large amounts of troops into Iran, and that is for good reason, but reluctance to do something is different from unwillingness to do so.
Except he already has shown he has, as an host of destroyed bridges shows. He has been sparring in those targets being selected and hit but that is again different.
Good people, find someone who will love you as deeply and passionately as Bushehr Bauxite loves utterly retarded and illogical arguments to try and get Trump. Or at a minimum as much as Trump loves AI slop images massaging his own ego.
Somehow Bauxite managed to wedge the claim that most of Iran’s military infrastructure has been destroyed (something even I am not sure I would go as far as to say though it has obviously been hurt greatly) into the same sentence as claiming Iran has “all the leverage”. And indeed is used as a reason for how Iran has all the leverage.
Let’s leave aside whether or not Iran has had most of its military infrastructure destroyed or “merely” much of it with generational damage: that such destruction ‘might’ undermine Iran’s ability to control the Strait is something Bauxite does not even allude to. Because this is not even at the level of credible propaganda.
Actually if this keeps up I might have to start apologizing to the former Iraqi Information Minister for comparing him to Bauxite, because as dishonest and credulous as he was I don’t think he went so far as to try and claim that the destruction of his regime’s own military assets was a reason why it had “all the leverage” over the side that did the destroying.
Except they did not credibly close the strait as I detailed many times before.
We quite literally have warships in the strait now operating with their transponders on engaged in minesweeping Bauxite. https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-international/2026/04/15/IT227OPLMJGPJO2RS6BJKOLT3U/?outputType=amp
If this is your definition of “unwilling to do anything further to them-“ quite literally broadcasting to the world that we are in their backyard with two destroyers essentially doing the Braveheart Movie Salute to them as they undertake minesweeping of the Strait while underlining the inability of the Iranians to strike at them with drones, aerial attack, or naval forces – then you are truly delusional. Which is to say, on brand as of late.
Unlikely, but the desire to play for time and try to bring Pakistani support in helps.
Indeed.
But I thought you wrote that we were “unwilling to do anything further to them.” A blockade is something further.
I’d sure they would love to, but they aren’t going to be able to.
Depending on whose sources you believe, Russia has taken around a million and a quarter casualties, of which about a fourth were KIA. This is a death toll almost in par with the sum of both sides in the American Civil War or the total US casualties in WWII, and in excess of all US casualties in every conflict since 1945. In large part motivated by a series of Russian intel failures and brutality towards the Ukrainian public on par with the Iranian regime’s treatment of its own people. A full scale invasion of Iran would be costly and tricky, but it is monumentally unlikely to trigger bleeding of anything like that scale.
True as far as it goes but it is taking others.
Perhaps but the issue is if he needs it more than he needs a defanged or removed Iranian regime and its downflow effects on things like PRC power. Especially now that the US is a net exporter and poised to ramp up energy production further.
That would be interesting to discuss with someone who is not intellectually bankrupt and so dishonest they will try and claim Iran losing most of its military infrastructure would not impair its ability to control the Straits, but as we have established that person is not you, Bushehr Bauxite.
And I suspect I am not the only person who has come to that conclusion. If you wish to gripe about others talking about how you are a moron or not making “substantive” rebuttals, it is perhaps because others have recognized that not only are your points ultimately lacking in substance and accuracy in spite of their posturing, but that trying to engage with them and critique you substantively is a waste of time because you have been acting like a dishonest, malevolent troll and a liar who will ignore evidence to the contrary and hurl insults in lieu of arguing the points.
Lucky or unlucky. I am willing to spend the time and effort. Unfortunately this takes away from my efforts to fisk Kent and co elsewhere as requested, but I think it is worth the diversion.
huxley
Good play on words.
Neither the Japanese nor the Germans were willing to surrender. Recall the many attempts of Japan to negotiate a separate peace using Moscow as a middleman.
The Iranians cry “negotiate” because that is all they have. When have the Iranians ever conceded anything in their “negotiations?”
If you try to kill the king, you had damn well make sure you do it.
The Trump position is surrender of all nuclear material & no terrorist attacks on shipping. That’s much less than unconditional surrender & regime change, as I would prefer & support.
I’ve read tweets about more Persians hunting down regime supporters, but it doesn’t seem to be a civil war yet. I don’t think Trump is going to put US boots on the Iranian mainline, except as a final push to mop up Tehran & a few IRGC strongholds to secure the last of the uranium, AFTER the Iranian boots on the ground have mostly won.
When will the Prince call for Iranians to rise up? Delay allows the US to make more plans & have more force, allows more organization against the regime, but allows the regime more time to carry plans they’ve already made.
In the meantime, the Lebanese govt is starting to work against Hezbollah, so those terrorists use up more of their stockpiles of missiles, but that use reduces the threat.
The Iranian threats around the Straight are being countered & neutralized by the US. Still a few weeks to go for the 60 & 90 day War Powers time limits.
How about those astronauts?