Post New

...was carrying ballistic missile ingredients inbound from China. Because of course it was.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/dmitri-bolt/2026/04/...

The Iranian ship seized by U.S. Marines on Monday after attempting to break through President Trump’s blockade was reportedly found to be carrying dual-use chemicals shipped from China that are commonly used to manufacture ballistic missiles.

In an interview on Tuesday, President Trump confirmed the report, describing the chemicals as a "gift from China." He added that he was surprised by it because he thought he "had an understanding with President Xi."

"You know, they're trying to move the missiles, because we've obliterated most of their missiles, and they're trying to move their missiles around, even during the ceasefire, which I think was a good thing, because we're totally loaded up," he said. "We have so much ammo. We have so much of everything that we've, like, much, much more powerful than it was four or five weeks ago."

"So we've used [the ceasefire] to restock, and they probably have done a little bit of restocking. We caught a ship yesterday that had some things on it, which wasn't very nice. A gift from China, perhaps," President Trump said. "I don't know. But I was a little surprised, because I have a very good relationship, and I thought I had an understanding with President Xi, but that's all right. That's the way war goes, right?"

was reportedly found to be carrying dual-use chemicals shipped from China that are commonly used to manufacture ballistic missiles.

OOOOOhhhh! The return of the "enrichment centrifuge tubes"?

Aluminum tubes purchased by the nation of Iraq were intercepted in Jordan in 2001. In September 2002 they were publicly cited by the White House as evidence that Iraq was actively pursuing an atomic weapon. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, many questioned the validity of the claim. After the invasion, the Iraq Survey Group determined that the best explanation for the tubes' use was to produce conventional 81-mm rockets; no evidence was found of a program to design or develop an 81-mm aluminum rotor uranium centrifuge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_aluminum_tubes

Steve

OOOOOhhhh! The return of the "enrichment centrifuge tubes"?


I know, right? Why would the Chinese help the Iranian ballistic missile programs? It's absurd to think they would.

The Iranians just need a sh1t ton of sodium perchlorate for all the thyroid problems they have. An epidemic, I tells ya.

We've now intercepted and turned around 28 Iranian ships. Hey, they get credit for trying. Me, I'd just as soon shoot holes in all their engine rooms and park them someplace in the Gulf to gather dust.

https://x.com/CENTCOM/status/2046607900987035697?r...

Since the start of the U.S. blockade against ships entering or exiting Iranian ports, U.S. forces have directed 28 vessels to turn around or return to port.

Meanwhile, another shadow tanker is out of business:
https://x.com/DeptofWar/status/2046544038812156177...

Overnight, U.S. forces conducted a right-of-visit, maritime interdiction and boarding of the stateless sanctioned M/T Tifani without incident in the INDOPACOM area of responsibility.

As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran—anywhere they operate.

International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels. The Department of War will continue to deny illicit actors and their vessels freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain.

Captain America always says, "I can do this all day". When it comes to seizing illegal ships and taking them out of service, yep. We can do this all day.

But can the Iranian regime keep doing this all day? Better get to work on that Afghanistan railway link, fellas.

I know, right? Why would the Chinese help the Iranian ballistic missile programs? It's absurd to think they would.

Of course they're going to help. That's why it's absurd to think that blowing up Iran's missiles would lead to any long-term degradation in their capabilities.

As soon as the war is over they're going to replenish their ballistic missile stocks. And China's going to help them, by providing raw materials - and probably a lot of financing and capital investment as well. Iran long ago learned how to build their own missiles and other weapons, in response to very severe arms sanctions. But there's still an opportunity for China to get involved by providing materials and money.

It's a situation that only strengthens China's position in the Middle East, as Iran gets drawn even further into their grasp. They're going to have little choice but to rely on the Chinese after the war is over, to even a greater degree than they did before (especially since Russia's in no position to do them many favors). Xi probably can't believe his luck....

The Iranians just need a sh1t ton of sodium perchlorate for all the thyroid problems they have. An epidemic, I tells ya.

Sarcasm appreciated. The thing is, as noted for weeks, we can't be sure who Baghdad Bob is. Both sides have a record of playing pretty loose with facts. Was that even what was on the ship? We really don't know. It's like the aluminum tubes, or maybe a complete fabrication, like the "yellowcake letter", or the "Prague meeting". Neo-cons have no respect for the truth. They proved that 20 years ago. The only objective, is advancing their agenda.

As for Trump the Conqueror trying to pick a fight with China, he's been doing that since his first term. Remember, in about August of 2019, he was telling companies to get their supply chains out of China? Do you really think any of the USian "L&Ses" give a hoot about a Muslim minority in China, when they paint every other Muslim in the world as the Islamic boogyman? Of course not. It's a nice sounding cover story. They realize China is funding it's challenge to USian hegemony with the money we give them for their manufactured goods.

Steve

It's a situation that only strengthens China's position in the Middle East, as Iran gets drawn even further into their grasp.

This funny. The entire GCC has had it up to here with Iran. China openly siding with Iran? That'll "strengthen" their position with Iran and have the opposite effect with everyone else.

Xi probably can't believe his luck....

And this is even funnier. Xi had this before, only completely under the radar. Now?

The Gulf states are none too happy with Iran. Think they're going to be thrilled with the people helping Iran rain missiles down on their heads?

As for Trump the Conqueror trying to pick a fight with China, he's been doing that since his first term. Remember, in about August of 2019, he was telling companies to get their supply chains out of China? Do you really think any of the USian "L&Ses" give a hoot about a Muslim minority in China, when they paint every other Muslim in the world as the Islamic boogyman? Of course not. It's a nice sounding cover story. They realize China is funding it's challenge to USian hegemony with the money we give them for their manufactured goods.

It's not about starting a war with China. It's about preventing one.

Hard liners in China want to blast Taiwan at the soonest opportunity. But if those hard liners are aware that the minute they do, China's oil spigot gets turned off - and it will - then they might think twice about depriving the world of most of its computer chips (because the second they start shooting at Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are also at risk.

As for moving supply chains out of China, it's the right thing to do. Plenty of places to set up shop that don't have people ripping off your intellectual property to the extent that it happens in China.

As for moving supply chains out of China, it's the right thing to do. Plenty of places to set up shop that don't have people ripping off your intellectual property to the extent that it happens in China.

I agree. I would much rather see that work go to Mexico. Mexico will not challenge USian hegemony, but *will* provide better opportunities to the people streaming "el norte". For years, Mexico has been issuing work permits to migrants, hoping they will stay, and build a life in Mexico, but many use those permits to pass through Mexico, to get to the US. Of course, it would be very helpful if Mexico could get it's arms around organized crime.

Oh, on that "ripping off intellectual property", China's rules for foreign companies setting up shop were they needed a Chinese partner, and they had to share their IP, with their partner. As Lenin predicted, the "JCs" were so hot to get at a Billion potential customers, and cheap labor, they were willing to sign off on anything. So, now, the "JCs" are crying a river because the Chinese took the technology the "JCs" gave them, developed it more than the "JCs" did, and are now outcompeting the "JCs".

Steve

This funny. The entire GCC has had it up to here with Iran. China openly siding with Iran? That'll "strengthen" their position with Iran and have the opposite effect with everyone else.

China's been siding with Iran for decades. Right? I thought that was a big part of your reason for thinking that this war was part of some master strategy for dealing with China, by removing a "piece" from the "board." The GCC will not be surprised that China is helping Iran, nor will they be surprised when China comes in to offer financing and support for Iran's reconstruction after the war.

And this is even funnier. Xi had this before, only completely under the radar. Now?

The Gulf states are none too happy with Iran. Think they're going to be thrilled with the people helping Iran rain missiles down on their heads?

No more than they're thrilled with the people who stirred up Iran into raining missiles down on their heads. Again, I'm sure they're none too happy with the U.S. and Israel for breaking open the hornet's nest while they were sitting under the branch.

Yes, China has always had to straddle the Sunni-Shia division that drives regional relations. That's something that China has managed, and will continue to manage, going forward. They're very good at slow, consistent, non-chaotic diplomacy. And, of course, they're the Gulf states' largest customer for oil - which is why those states have all had good relations with China even though China's also been working with Tehran.

That's why Xi cannot believe his good luck. The U.S. has created a massive opening for the type of investment and infrastructure-driven influence that China excels at. They'll be coming in and helping both the Iranians and the Gulf States - at a time when neither Russia nor the U.S. is going to be much interested in foreign ventures.

China's been siding with Iran for decades.

China's been trying to buy friends for decades. The other Gulf states are probably also a bit cheesed off that the Chinese are able to get sanctioned oil from the Iranians at a discount rather than buying it from them at full price.

Right? I thought that was a big part of your reason for thinking that this war was part of some master strategy for dealing with China, by removing a "piece" from the "board."

The world's energy markets are being remade in real time in ways that favor us. I'm not so sure why this is such a mystery or why that's beneficial to us especially as it relates to China.

No more than they're thrilled with the people who stirred up Iran into raining missiles down on their heads.

Yeah, they're not blaming us for that.

That's something that China has managed, and will continue to manage, going forward. They're very good at slow, consistent, non-chaotic diplomacy.

Non-chaotic? What you really mean to say is that China is good at exporting chaos through other states...like Iran. They've effectively been bankrolling some of the worst regimes on the planet for decades.

Just look at who they buy their oil from.

That's why Xi cannot believe his good luck.

If you say so. Venezuela, their drug cartel partner, is now not a place where they can get unlimited oil from. Iran, whom everyone in the region thought was much stronger than it is, was just dismantled in less than a month.
>80% of China's commercial shipping runs through a 2 mile strait that's now going to have the US Navy all over it.

Global energy markets are shifting to the US, and we for sure aren't selling the Chinese a drop of oil for less than market price.

And Xi's seen some of his best equipment slapped aside by the US and Israel. Yeah, everyone should be this lucky.

The world's energy markets are being remade in real time in ways that favor us. I'm not so sure why this is such a mystery or why that's beneficial to us especially as it relates to China.

Favoring certain, but not all, of "us".

His nibs brags about all the tankers making for Texas and Louisiana, daily. As noted before, the entities ordering those tankers to the US, will be bidding against USians, for a fixed supply of oil. USian big oil will profit handsomely. USian Proles will only be paying higher prices for the fuel they need, and juggling that with the 7 year financing on their big SUV, and their mortgage, and their five figure student loan.

A couple times a day, as the Lex ran out of water between Florida and Louisiana, she would execute a 180 degree turn, at full speed. They seemed to always want to execute this turn, while I was having chow. The 1MC would bark "heel to port". I would stop eating and grab everything, as the ship heeled, a lot.

Watch USians stop doing other things, as higher energy prices skew their spending patterns.

Steve

The other Gulf states are probably also a bit cheesed off that the Chinese are able to get sanctioned oil from the Iranians at a discount rather than buying it from them at full price.

I mean, that's the point of sanctions, right? To punish the sanctioned country? I'm sure they might have preferred to have a little more market demand, but I'm sure they regarded the economic pain inflicted on Iran as somewhat worth it.

The world's energy markets are being remade in real time in ways that favor us. I'm not so sure why this is such a mystery or why that's beneficial to us especially as it relates to China.

Because...the world's energy markets aren't being remade in real time in ways that favor us? You've mentioned this a few times, but I genuinely don't understand the logic. We've always had the ability to just give up on sanctioning regimes if we wanted them to be able to sell oil freely - and doing that doesn't really "remake" oil markets, just eliminates the modest "sanction discount" that purchasers received.

Iran, whom everyone in the region thought was much stronger than it is, was just dismantled in less than a month.
>80% of China's commercial shipping runs through a 2 mile strait that's now going to have the US Navy all over it.

Global energy markets are shifting to the US, and we for sure aren't selling the Chinese a drop of oil for less than market price.

What are you talking about? Iran's outperformed expectations. No one - literally no one - thought Iran could prevail in a conventional military fight with the U.S. It will surprise no one that our air force could beat their air force, and similarly the navies. The big surprise of the war was how effectively and easily Iran was able to shut down the strait, and how helpless the U.S. was in the fact of it.

As for Malacca, that's not really an outcome of this foolish military "excursion." It's certainly good for the U.S., of course - though it's helpful to remember that Indonesia is still balancing the U.S. and China here. It's not going to "have the US Navy all over it" - the MDC doesn't massively shift U.S. naval presence in the region. It's still significant for our ability to monitor that area - we're not getting basis, but we're getting the ability to overfly and surveil that we didn't have before.

And global energy markets aren't "shifting to the US." There's a short-term blockage of the strait, which means that in the short term all of the non-strait oil supplies will see an increase in customers trying to access them. But because the Administration keeps insisting that the war will end soon, you have not seen a significant increase in U.S. drilling activity. New oil sources take months to bring online, and need many more months/years of production to be worth the initial investment. Since U.S. oil output isn't materially shifting as a result of the excursion, global energy markets aren't materially shifting either.

And Xi's seen some of his best equipment slapped aside by the US and Israel. Yeah, everyone should be this lucky.

Isn't that more true of us than Xi? We weren't able to prevent Iran from hitting the other states in the Gulf, despite having some of our best equipment in the region - or to keep them from landing hits on some of our bases, which will require considerable funds to repair. We're the major arms supplier to the Gulf, and we are the ones who set up those defenses. And for the hits on the U.S. bases, that's us using our own military equipment to defend our own facilities. Meanwhile, as noted above, Iran was largely isolated from international military markets through years of sanctions. Meanwhile, China didn't send Iran their "best equipment" - they've mostly refrained from direct military transfers for decades. Instead, Iran's benefitted from parts and dual-use materials transfers from China, as well as financial and infrastructure assistance - but most of their stuff is home-built.

Yeah, I'd say Xi is feeling pretty lucky about how this is all turning out. The U.S. unable to meet their strategic goals, openly shown to be incapable of opening the strait of Hormuz against a much smaller power, and having Iran be able to penetrate their anti-missile defenses sufficient to hit multiple U.S. bases with home-built technology?

I mean, that's the point of sanctions, right? To punish the sanctioned country? I'm sure they might have preferred to have a little more market demand, but I'm sure they regarded the economic pain inflicted on Iran as somewhat worth it.

What's the point of sanctions? To enable the world's #2 economy to be able to buy cheap oil?

You've mentioned this a few times, but I genuinely don't understand the logic. We've always had the ability to just give up on sanctioning regimes if we wanted them to be able to sell oil freely - and doing that doesn't really "remake" oil markets, just eliminates the modest "sanction discount" that purchasers received.

I have mentioned this a few times.

What are you talking about? Iran's outperformed expectations.

Only in the eyes of CNN and msnow. To everyone else, they've shown themselves to be rather ordinary.

As for Malacca, that's not really an outcome of this foolish military "excursion." It's certainly good for the U.S., of course - though it's helpful to remember that Indonesia is still balancing the U.S. and China here. It's not going to "have the US Navy all over it" - the MDC doesn't massively shift U.S. naval presence in the region. It's still significant for our ability to monitor that area - we're not getting basis, but we're getting the ability to overfly and surveil that we didn't have before.

We're getting repair facilities and more. Furthermore, the SoM are only 2 miles wide. You don't need the US Navy all over it as you do *under* it which was exactly the deal we signed with the Indonesians.

And global energy markets aren't "shifting to the US."

Okay. Guess the world loves the status quo.

Isn't that more true of us than Xi?

No

The U.S. unable to meet their strategic goals, openly shown to be incapable of opening the strait of Hormuz against a much smaller power, and having Iran be able to penetrate their anti-missile defenses sufficient to hit multiple U.S. bases with home-built technology?

Okay, sure.

What's the point of sanctions? To enable the world's #2 economy to be able to buy cheap oil?

No - the point of sanctions is to punish the sanctioned country. For example, we imposed sanctions on Venezuela because the regime suppress democracy and refused to honor elections, was grossly corrupt, and completely ignored the rule of law. It's not based on the price of oil. We can decide that we no longer care about any of those things (which are still largely the same), of course. But that's just us giving up on what we wanted to achieve with the sanctions, not some kind of brilliant strategic maneuver.

Okay. Guess the world loves the status quo.

It's not a question of "loves" or not. Oil is a globally traded fungible commodity, for the most part. It's not going to "shift to the U.S." unless underlying and long-term market fundamentals cause that to happen. The status quo will remain unless those underlying market and geopolitical economic forces change. Fracking caused global energy markets to have a material long-term shift towards the U.S. - Trump's military excursion will not.

Isn't that more true of us than Xi?

No

Why not? We're the one that brought our equipment into the fight, and Iran was able to get around it in attacking both our Gulf allies and our own military installations. Meanwhile, Iran was mostly doing that with home-built military stuff. They're not using Xi's best and shiniest new hardware, since China largely hasn't been supplying Iran with completed military equipment over the last many years. Materials, parts and financial support to be sure - but not actual systems.

Okay, sure.

Yes, sure. Iran's government survived a full attack by the U.S. They were able to leverage their geographic advantage over the strait to prevent the U.S. from reopening it. They've been able to strike our military bases and the infrastructure of our allies, despite the deployment of defensive anti-projectile systems. Their ability to do that, and our inability to stop them, has allowed them to drive the U.S. to a ceasefire/negotiating posture rather than just forcing them with military strikes to do what we want. It's been almost two months, and we haven't yet been able to force them to do any of the things we want them to do: give up their nukes forever, give up their support for terror proxies forever, no longer have ballistic missiles, etc. All while damaging all of our allies across the global with high energy prices brought on by our decision to launch this war.

Yeah - China's got to be pretty delighted by how this has played out, no matter what the endgame ends up being in Iran.

Isn't that more true of us than Xi? We weren't able to prevent Iran from hitting the other states in the Gulf, despite having some of our best equipment in the region - or to keep them from landing hits on some of our bases, which will require considerable funds to repair. We're the major arms supplier to the Gulf, and we are the ones who set up those defenses. And for the hits on the U.S. bases, that's us using our own military equipment to defend our own facilities.

This last point just is beyond head scratching. Here's some numbers:

https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/20462716178152...

Iran Missile and Drone Attacks: Full List of Targets and Number Launched

Iran's fired a staggering number of things in all directions:

~2,276 ballistic missiles
~481 cruise missiles
~6,295 drones

Let's look at just the UAE. A country of mostly empty space so all the attacks go to the coastal areas. They've absorbed

537 ballistic missiles
26 cruise missiles
2,256 drones

Wow. According to your analysis Abu Dhabi and Dubai must be lying in ruins.

Let's look at Bahrain, a not very big country:
369 Ballistic missiles
845 drones

Lots of big fat targets there given that it houses CENTCOM headquarters and has naval repair facilities. But Bahrain isn't a hole in the Gulf with water rushing in where the island once stood.

Wonder why that is?

No - the point of sanctions is to punish the sanctioned country.

It's doing a bang-up job in Iran.

Why not?

See my previous post.

Yes, sure.

if you say so.

This last point just is beyond head scratching. Here's some numbers:

Why is that head scratching? The relevant factor isn't how many missiles get blocked, but how many get through. Iran was able to hit a fair number of targets, exactly by sending a ton of missiles and drones and overloading the systems so that a small number could get through. They haven't needed to make Bahrain a hole in the Gulf, any more than they needed to sink dozens of ships in the strait to close it. They just needed to demonstrate that they could overwhelm the defensive systems and cause massive damage to energy infrastructure if we pushed them to the brink, and that the U.S. systems couldn't completely stop their attacks. It is absolutely not in their interest to take that escalatory step at this time - just to demonstrate that they can, as a last resort, so that we don't go after their energy and domestic infrastructure.

That's what drove energy prices sky high. That's what's caused the U.S. to pivot to a ceasefire rather than bomb them back to the stone age. Because we can't stop them from blowing up the Gulf, if we take things too far. Same deterrent effect as having a nuke - you don't want to use it, just to have it so that you can't be destroyed without inflicting cataclysmic damage on your attacker.

if you say so.

Thanks. Sometimes it seemed like the actual criticisms of the war strategy weren't registering. No one's questioning that the military has had unparalleled operational success - we've been able to blow up everything we wanted to blow up. Instead, the point has always been that those tactical achievements aren't advancing our strategic goals in any material way. Not in Iran and certainly not in some broader conflict with China. How many missiles we've blown up or how many sorties we've successfully delivered bombs to won't achieve those strategic goals, any more than counting tons of bodies in Vietnam meant we were any closer to "winning" that war.

Why is that head scratching?

Because it's rather absurd. The US and the Israelis have shot down literally thousands of drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. According to you,

They've been able to strike our military bases and the infrastructure of our allies, despite the deployment of defensive anti-projectile systems. Their ability to do that, and our inability to stop them, has allowed them to drive the U.S. to a ceasefire/negotiating posture rather than just forcing them with military strikes to do what we want.

This is serious Come on, man territory.

I'll remind you that we haven't seriously made an attempt to force open the straits as yet. Right now some ship captains are figuring out there are safe lines through. But I'm sure the mighty Iranians let the cruise ships through in a gesture of their magnanimity.

And this
They just needed to demonstrate that they could overwhelm the defensive systems and cause massive damage to energy infrastructure if we pushed them to the brink,

What "massive damage" have they caused to the "energy infrastructure"? You mean the Saudis' Red Sea pipeline? This one?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/saudi-arab...

Saudi Arabia returned its East-West pipeline to full operating capacity of about 7 million barrels a day, reestablishing a critical route for crude shipments to the Red Sea.

I suppose we should just surrender to the Iranians now. Might save us the trouble later.

Instead, the point has always been that those tactical achievements aren't advancing our strategic goals in any material way. Not in Iran and certainly not in some broader conflict with China.

Again - if you say so. You've asserted this point at least two dozen times by now; I don't agree with it but it is what it is.

This is serious Come on, man territory.

No, it's not. Because, again, it's not about how many missiles you shoot down, but whether any get through.

One successful attack - one! - at Qatar's Ras Laffan ended up knocking out 17% of their gas production. It will take them between 3-5 years to repair the damage, and they will end up losing about $20 billion per year in revenue apart from the cost of reconstruction. It triggered force majeure clauses worldwide and precipitated a massive spike in gas costs.

So no, this isn't Come on, man territory. Iran can flood the zone with missiles that cost $1-2M each (and drones that cost even less), and cause $50 billion worth of damage? It doesn't matter if you have a 99% success rate in knocking them down. They win that exchange.

This is exactly the disconnect, BTW. You keep mistaking operational or tactical success with achieving any kind of strategic success. Tactically, the U.S. did great - we shot down so many of their missiles. Strategically, Iran succeeded - they showed that even though the U.S. can shoot down a ton of their missiles, if they flood the zone they can get some through and cause devastating impacts.

What "massive damage" have they caused to the "energy infrastructure"? You mean the Saudis' Red Sea pipeline? This one?

No, this one:

Iranian attacks ‌have knocked out 17% of Qatar's liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity, causing an estimated $20 billion in lost annual revenue and threatening supplies to Europe and Asia, QatarEnergy's CEO and state minister for energy affairs told Reuters on Thursday.

Saad al-Kaabi said two of Qatar's 14 LNG trains and one of its two gas-to-liquids (GTL) facilities were damaged in ​the unprecedented strikes. The repairs will sideline 12.8 million tons per year of LNG for three to five years, he said ​in an interview.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/iran-attac...

For a more comprehensive picture:

https://energynow.com/wp-content/uploads/Energy-Di...
and
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/15/iran-war-energy-fa...

To put that in perspective, almost all of that damage took place within only about two weeks. Iran didn't start attacking regional energy infrastructure until Israel bombed South Pars on March 18th. In response to that escalation, Iran escalated - hitting a number of regional energy targets starting the next day.

I suppose we should just surrender to the Iranians now. Might save us the trouble later.

I know you're being flippant, but it's entirely possible for us to fail to achieve most of our strategic goals without that being a surrender. Hurting Iran further doesn't necessarily mean we're achieving anything materially worthwhile. We could blow up more of their bridges, more of their missiles - and it won't necessarily bring us any closer to any of our own strategic objectives. It might indeed end up being in our best interests to enter into an agreement with them now, rather than endure the further disruption of global energy markets and the consumption of our own military resources that continued prosecution of the war will involve.

So no, this isn't Come on, man territory. Iran can flood the zone with missiles that cost $1-2M each (and drones that cost even less), and cause $50 billion worth of damage? It doesn't matter if you have a 99% success rate in knocking them down. They win that exchange.

Then we should just lay down our arms now and walk away. Because they hold all the cards and there's zero point.

It might indeed end up being in our best interests to enter into an agreement with them now, rather than endure the further disruption of global energy markets and the consumption of our own military resources that continued prosecution of the war will involve.

Exactly, just quit.

further disruption of global energy markets and the consumption of our own military resources

You are arguing against irrationality. Spankee doesn't give a crap about global energy markets OR use of US military resources. His ONLY objective is to LOOK STRONG and CLAIM THE WIN--regardless of the actual outcome. That is the ONLY thing he demands.

If Iran is able to attack and sink ANYTHING, Spankee will be seen as weak and ineffective. His open-ended statement about any future meetings with Iran makes him look weak because he CANNOT force Iran to do anything.

Boots on the ground? Not yet, at least. That may be 1-3 weeks off. He does NOT want yet another war associated with him. He already has his Afghanistan failure/retreat on this record.

What does he do when a Chinese oil tanker arrives at Iran with Chinese military escort ships?

Then we should just lay down our arms now and walk away. Because they hold all the cards and there's zero point.

I don't think we can do that now. For all the President's bluster that we've already won, we might have to sit down and actually negotiate out an end to the war. I mean, we could always just leave - we're not literally trapped there. But we're likely better off with the war ending in a negotiated agreement than our just abruptly departing and leaving everything....well, just broken. The Administration detests the "Pottery Barn" rule, but the region has been badly damaged by the war, and our allies are likely going to need some "clean up on aisle 6," as it were.

We should be able to extract some concessions out of Iran to end the war. I don't know whether we can get as good as we could have gotten before the war, or as good as the JCPOA - and we certainly won't get anything that's worth the resources we expended to get here - but we should be able to get some framework in place in exchange for concluding hostilities. But we're probably better off getting to that agreement now, rather than resuming the bombing and trying to outlast Iran in a war of attrition. Because while we can hurt them a lot by doing that, we also suffer a lot of damage ourselves, and it's hard to see that it would materially change where we end up.

……… we might have to sit down and actually negotiate out an end to the war.

Thanks for the chuckle, albaby. Always good to start the day off with a laugh.

So we’ve fired all our diplomatic negotiators, we’ve fired all our FBI Iran intelligence experts, and we’re sending over 2 real estate agents and a hillbilly who’s experience in negotiating is most likely buying a new car.

All led by an ignorant schizophrenic individual who is suffering from dementia and actually believes he’s the smartest person in the world.

What could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, a lot could go wrong, of course. None of this is great. But given the choice between just "up and leave" without some sort of agreement, and sitting down and hammering out an agreement, the latter is almost certainly more in our interests.

It's easy to identify a possible off-ramp for both parties. That deal is one where Iran gets substantially the same or better terms as they had under the JCPOA and/or were willing to agree to before this war, but it has one or more "extra" subjects that weren't covered under any of those things that Trump can claim as a win (even if they're not that important). For example, you could just repeat the JCPOA terms but add a provision that says Iran won't develop an ICBM. That last bit would be no skin of Iran's nose, but it would let Trump and his supporters claim that unlike that terrible Obama, this deal covers missiles, so thank goodness for President Trump!

The real obstacle is that Iran has notoriously been difficult to negotiate with. They have historically strung out discussions, failed to empower their delegates to make any decisions, change terms in midstream, and favor very lengthy and cumbersome processes. And that was before we pulled out of the laboriously negotiated JCPOA and attacked them during prior diplomatic processes - there's far less trust in the process today.

We don't know for sure, but most of what we know of Trump points to him not wanting to still be negotiating this deal in 18 months. He likely wants a very fast path to a deal - which is not really Iran's thing. He is at least acting like Iran is under serious time pressure with the embargo. Hopefully that's true, but if it's not it may be difficult for the U.S. to hold the line for a strong deal. High prices are going to segue into actual shortages for a lot of economies in the next few weeks, and that's going to make things more difficult for the U.S. going forward.

We don't know for sure, but most of what we know of Trump points to him not wanting to still be negotiating this deal in 18 months.

No, he doesn't want to still be negotiating this in 3 months with the midterms looming. After the midterms he’s a serous lame duck, perhaps a dead duck if Dems take both houses. At that point it doesn’t matter, he’ll just spend the days on the golf course with the Twitter machine in hand

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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