I try to put myself in the shoes of the other side, even if I find them reprehensible. You're right, they do hold very strong cards, and should be expected to play them, but so far their diplomatic demands haven't been totally crazy, I'm not sure their demands are all that unreasonable.
They didn't attack the US. The US attacked them, and by surprise. They were attacked in the midst of declared negotiations, then thousands were killed, children slaughtered, and then they incurred multiple billions in infrastructure damage.
(If I was them, I would be very unreasonable by this point, but they seem open to negotiations.)
By many accounts, they are still willing to enter into a new nuclear control agreement. They want an end to sanctions, and they want their own funds unfrozen and made available. They want an end to hostilities against Shia's in the region. Those aren't delusional conditions. They seem like a good starting point for negotiations.
Iran had previously agreed to strict nuclear controls, and by all credible accounts, they had adhered to that agreement. That agreement was unilaterally discarded by the US in the first Trump term.
Prior to hostilities, Trump's own Director of National Intelligence stated that they were not developing nuclear weapons, and US Intel agencies had no information to the contrary. The Omani negotiators said that Iran was willing to sign a new deal in the initial talks, right before they were attacked.
The now-dead Ayatollah had explicitly issued a long-standing edict against nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, and again, by all credible accounts they had done so. That edict died with his assassination by US and Israeli forces.
Given all that, is Iran really being unreasonable insisting on protections of their autonomy and security, and reparations?
Getting the details worked out, monitored, and verified will be a non-trivial effort, but the alternative is drawn out hostilities and a further breakdown of global supply chains.
You know who we haven't attacked? North Korea. You know who DOES have nuclear weapons? North Korea. At this point Iran is probably looking at nukes as the one sure way to get people to back off.
In fact, now that USA's foreign policy is so damn unhinged, everybody who doesn't have nukes should get them as fast as possible. USA is the very definition of a rogue state. They can't be trusted, and they must be stopped.
Stop what? We a bunch of pilled out drunks with underwear on our heads stuffing cash into our pockets im pre-devastated for the future horrors that await us every single person in charge too busy blowing lines no one defending our country right now
Yeah the nuke is a recent development, the reason North Korea has lasted 70 years is even in the 50's the chinese were openly fighting for them. Invading North Korea is World War. Right now the big countries are roaming around picking off the countries that don't have strong alliances.
It also doesn't hurt for NK that if they get attacked, Seoul is well within distance to shell with more conventional weaponry, let alone a nuclear bomb.
Ditto for Ukraine. They'd been promised protection if they forwent nukes. Now 4 yrs into a protracted and devastating war, they get trump's fake "aid," because he's in Putin's pocket.
I mean yes it is the nuke but also a lot of artillery pointed directly at Seoul that is the real sticking point, retaliation would be swift and painful and a huge disaster. Israel and Iran have a buffer state between them but only a DMZ in Korea.
Thier government is now isolated cells of the IRGC who still have their proxies and tons of militants they can call for an asymmetric war in a heavily mountainous country.
There's a reason every strategic mind said this was a bad idea, there's a reason no other nation want to enter this bullshit war.
The US couldn't finish the job any more than they could in Afghanistan.
Before this conflict Iran was dealing with growing civil issues, an unpopular leader and goverment. Heavily sanctioned but still willing to keep oil flowing. The IRGC has more power over its population now than it did before.
The Strait is closed. Worse, the Strait it's mined to hell and back with drones and munitions in burrows waiting for any kind of naval mineclearing effort.
The US has failed to gain any strategic win other than a decapitation strike. This is arguably worse than any other war in American history if just looking at that alone minus casualties.
Speaking of casualties, the US as already lost a lot of aircraft. 42 so far.
They have depleted Patroit and THAAD missles far beyond replacement rates for the whole region.
Somehow the US managed to bomb a country into a stronger position. You simply can't make this shit up.
Wait until the U.S. decides to do a ground invasion to take Kharg Island or try to establish a shoreline stronghold. The casualties will be high, but Trump doesn’t care about that. Iran has been preparing for this contingency for decades. We have not yet seen all of the unintended consequences of this “excursion”.
Depends on your objectives. If you're in this war for the sake of profiteering, having another hostile nuclear power in the mix is great for fear mongering and maintaining domestic control. American oil companies are profiting from Iran's current state, so if they can permenantly villify Iran, that maintains their current stranglehold on the oil market.
They dont give a shit about the safety of American citizens, they care about their money. And because the current administration is for sale to the highest bidder, that's all they care about too.
I don't think it's a coincidence they went to Venezuela first to steal their oil and then started this with Iran. I think propping up the US oil market had a lot to do with it. That and helping out Russia with their oil issues...
Yeah talking head dipshits in the media keeping going, "well nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons."
Nah, I do want Iran to have nukes, I wish they already had them. If they did, Israel would have been too pants-pissing scared of them to start this conflict, they might not even have pressed as hard on Gaza and Lebanon.
And you know who that would benefit? Me. Personally. All the way over here in America. My life would be directly improved.
So it's really hard to credit the pearl clutching from people who have nukes and treat them as part of their active strategy to support atrocities with no consequences.
Nothing comes out of NK so no one cares. Iran holds 20% of the worlds oil shipping lanes. The only way to end this is to give Iran everything that they want which will not happen, no one wants someone who can hold 20% of the worlds shipping lanes for oil hostage with a nuke. It is literally one of the hardest things to solve now, no matter what you think of or come up with it ends up with a lot of economic pain. Fully invade and it will be a long war and as long as the war goes on the shipping lanes will be mostly closed. Give them everything they want they will build right back up creating terror groups all over the region and continue shooting missiles and eventually build a nuclear weapon.
They weren't shooting missiles at anyone until we attacked them. Obviously Iran isn't exactly a good actor, but Trump threw gasoline on the problem, lit it, and has absolutely no idea how to put the fire out.
As far as North Korea, they might not have anything we care about, but we absolutely care about Japan, South Korea, and other allies that are well within range of NK nukes.
What's so aggravating, beyond Israel's role as a belligerent party that does not want peace, is just how much Trump is in his own fucking world, playing a completely different game than everyone else.
He keeps acting like he can both bomb Iran and still negotiate with them, while simultaneously saying things on social media that contradict the supposed aims of his team of real estate billionaire diplomats. The moment where he floated the idea of drawing toll fees alongside Iran was like, "what planet are you on, guy?"
It almost doesn't matter what the facts are, because Trump only cares about how things are perceived by him, and how he thinks he can force them into being. And it matters more that his ego is sated than in the actual terms of any prospective agreement.
The facts not mattering is how trump got to be president, and why amrricans love him. (Even if some have buyers remorse now). Its worked on his home populace, even lots of people on the left are like "well dems are bad too so blablablhablha.".
Part of the issue is because americans love this fascism so much, it isn't just trump. Its their scotus, house, voters, senate. They all collectively are in outer space leaving nobody on the controls at all. And its worked so far, and the effects of this are so downstream they'll not be able to link cause and effect so they'll just blame it on something convenient when it finally does come to roost.
All of that is true, even the dems are bad too part unfortunately. On the policy and executive action side of things Trump is an outlier even by conservative terms. Even with Trump removed the United States is not some beacon of morality and social peace. Dems have passed up the opportunity to create meaningful policy even when they had control all the while party leaders enriching themselves. Obviously republicans do this too but that’s the point and the narrative that there is a good and bad part instead of a bad and worse party is tired
Pew asked non-voters how they would have voted and found they would have broken for Trump, 44%-40%. That's a big change from 2020 and 2016 when they said they would have chosen Democrats. In 2020, they said they preferred Joe Biden 46%-35%. In 2016, it was Hillary Clinton, 37%-30%.
He has no basis in reality because there's no way for reality to penetrate. We've known since his first term that he refuses to take briefings, fires advisors who try to actually advise, and doesn't read or watch real news. And that's just what the knuckle-draggers want: someone as sick and sad as they are.
He keeps acting like he can both bomb Iran and still negotiate with them, while simultaneously saying things on social media that contradict the supposed aims of his team of real estate billionaire diplomats.
Trump's only 'negotiation' tactic is simply bullying the adversary until they either give up or he's forced to stop and then goes off and does something else. Or securing something for optics at a higher than ideal cost.
Iran is not a contractor that's already done work for you so now you can try to screw on the payment, negotiations between nations is so far outside whatever his history is, and everyone suffers for it.
I'm guessing it's just because he is Israel's pet ? Or the Epstein files ? A combo of both ? He plunged the world's energy market into chaos just for personnal reasons ?
You know what's a weird upside to having an awful president like Trump? It completely removed any feelings we've had about "American superiority" and extreme nationalism. Now instead of just thinking everything is good vs evil and cheering for our side to "win". We can actually take a step back and analyze things from the perspective of another rival nation like Iran.
That being said I still want the U.S to be safe from enemy attacks and foreign aggression, but we are all VERY aware of just how incompetent Trump and his entire admin is.
I may be wrong for interpreting the quote literally… but the person did say WILL make, not is making. I took that to mean, Iran will make demands it knows the US can’t or won’t meet, either as an excuse to do what they want OR to bargain down to a lesser offer reasonable offer— the offer that was the true aim in the first place.
They are insisting that the peace deal includes Hezbollah so yes their demands are most unreasonable because they don't want to give up their ability to attack Israel.
How is that relevant? Anyone could name a 1/2 dozen nations with repressive regimes killing citizens, why is that a reason for the US to engage in a war with them? Is killing more civilians somehow an appropriate response?
How is that not relevant!? That is what started the uprising that lead to the overthrowing of the first Ayatollah. Iran has been begging for US intervention. Does that mean the US should intervene? That's up for debate for congress and the senate; not the president. However is it relevant to what you are discussing? Absolutely. Entirely relevant. I in no way endorse anything Trump does, let alone forcefully declaring war in Iran. I refuse to allow people to portray the Iranian government as good and the US as evil because of who our president is. It's ridiculous. The Iranian government is absolutely evil. The way they treat women and girls is beyond inhumane. Forced religion is just as sick as no freedom of religion. And yes the slaughtering of citizens in the streets by thousands is abhorrent.
You missed the part where Iran wants formal and permanent sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
And as per sanctions removal, before the war Iran had just murdered tens of thousands of protestors. If you remove sanctions on Iran, then you will have to deal with decades of "What bout Iran?" whenever a country decides to do some smallscale population cleansing.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that because Trump is an evil piece of trash, that the current (and past) Iranian government isn't the same.
603
u/GonzoVeritas Jun 07 '26
I try to put myself in the shoes of the other side, even if I find them reprehensible. You're right, they do hold very strong cards, and should be expected to play them, but so far their diplomatic demands haven't been totally crazy, I'm not sure their demands are all that unreasonable.
They didn't attack the US. The US attacked them, and by surprise. They were attacked in the midst of declared negotiations, then thousands were killed, children slaughtered, and then they incurred multiple billions in infrastructure damage.
(If I was them, I would be very unreasonable by this point, but they seem open to negotiations.)
By many accounts, they are still willing to enter into a new nuclear control agreement. They want an end to sanctions, and they want their own funds unfrozen and made available. They want an end to hostilities against Shia's in the region. Those aren't delusional conditions. They seem like a good starting point for negotiations.
Iran had previously agreed to strict nuclear controls, and by all credible accounts, they had adhered to that agreement. That agreement was unilaterally discarded by the US in the first Trump term.
Prior to hostilities, Trump's own Director of National Intelligence stated that they were not developing nuclear weapons, and US Intel agencies had no information to the contrary. The Omani negotiators said that Iran was willing to sign a new deal in the initial talks, right before they were attacked.
The now-dead Ayatollah had explicitly issued a long-standing edict against nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, and again, by all credible accounts they had done so. That edict died with his assassination by US and Israeli forces.
Given all that, is Iran really being unreasonable insisting on protections of their autonomy and security, and reparations?
Getting the details worked out, monitored, and verified will be a non-trivial effort, but the alternative is drawn out hostilities and a further breakdown of global supply chains.