2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran and elsewhere in region - News and Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember the frankly very astonishing operation to get a hold of the Iranian nuclear (weapons) archive. I also remember the subsequent very underwhelming appraisals about its contents from the expert community I happen to follow. My own impression is that Netanyahu and his cabinet (some of whom up until the very recent past were not highly thought of by U.S. intelligence and sanctioning bodies for their extremism) have had a very clear decadal strategy in the region.
I think you conflate media reactions, which mocked the presentation, with the actual intelligence community and IAEA which confirmed the intelligence.

It's not that the JCPOA was a fundamentally flawed deal or unfit for purpose, it's just that it stood in the way of implementing the Netanyahu headed strategy when (a perceived) opportunity (very meticulously prepared) to try and radically, abruptly rearrange the security environment through the application of force presented itself. They couldn't think out of their box and when the Iranian regime (for once, on their part) did with the JCPOA it was conceived of as a threat. The opportunity cost of even entertaining an alternative path was deemed too great, too uncertain. Perhaps off-hand.
The JCPOA was flawed. The flaw in your argument is that it relies solely on a political position in absence of a standalone logical argument.

Doesn't this simply give Iran a valuable reprieve that allows them to regroup and move around and hide their remaining military assets?
Regrouping is exactly what usually works to their detriment.
See the 40 senior figures eliminated in the opening strike.

From what I'm seeing, this looks like a pretty costly but strategic win for Iran. At the same time, it's a strategic setback for the US, despite its military dominance on the field.
What did Iran gain here?

I never did like sanctions--they hurt poors the most.
The sanctions had a minor effect on poor people in Iran but their absence would lead to global effects worth far more than the sum of Iran's economy, several times over.
They do in fact save a lot of money and suffering.
 
Some things to consider in the context of a ceasefire:

  1. Israel has to split its attention to Lebanon, reducing OpTempo in Iran.

  2. Diminishing returns started around last week.
    1. IDF announced at the time it hit all major targets and could end the operation there if needed.
  3. European allies agreed to send military assets to reopen the SoH when a ceasefire is made.
    1. But best assume they'll back out.
  4. Deception tactics could be at play.
    1. Perhaps to have Iranian leadership consolidate again for additional decapitations.
    2. Could also be a trial run for opposition coherence and capability.
 
What did Iran gain here?
It's more of a question of what Iran didn't compromised for a peace deal , as Iran was the defensive side in this conflict, defending its objectives.

Achieved Regime's objective of surviving & remaining in control of Iran.

Still retaining its nuclear material & not compromising on its nuclear program to reach a deal with the U.S.

Iranian proxies still alive & active in the region.

Still retaining significant ability to retaliate over long distances.


Though they also made Strategic gains, they now Have much more control on hormuz strait than they had before, even talks of Iran wanting to Tax ships passing through it.


The only Objective U.S. & Israel were able to Partially achieve is degradation of Iranian military power & civilian infra.
 

How Trump Took the U.S. to War With Iran​

U.S. and Israeli officials gathered first in the Cabinet Room, adjacent to the Oval Office. Then Mr. Netanyahu headed downstairs for the main event: a highly classified presentation on Iran for President Trump and his team in the White House Situation Room, which was rarely used for in-person meetings with foreign leaders.
In the Situation Room on Feb. 11, Mr. Netanyahu made a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint U.S.-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic.

At one point, the Israelis played for Mr. Trump a brief video that included a montage of potential new leaders who could take over the country if the hard-line government fell. Among those featured was Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last shah, now a Washington-based dissident who had tried to position himself as a secular leader who could shepherd Iran toward a post-theocratic government.
Mr. Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions they portrayed as pointing to near-certain victory: Iran’s ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against U.S. interests in neighboring countries was assessed as minimal.

Besides, Mossad’s intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again and — with the impetus of the Israeli spy agency helping to foment riots and rebellion — an intense bombing campaign could foster the conditions for the Iranian opposition to overthrow the regime. The Israelis also raised the prospect of Iranian Kurdish fighters crossing the border from Iraq to open a ground front in the northwest, further stretching the regime’s forces and accelerating its collapse.

NYT, so take with a spoon of salt.

Basically, the article alleges that Bibi showed his shabbos goy friend some AI slop on how future war with Iran will be 20 minute adventure, quick in-and-out victory, he bought that "Israeli intelligence" and yes-men in his cabinet havn't decicively opposed this so-called 'plan'.
 
I think no one should be having any illusions about the americans let alone 'israel' respecting any ceasefire or honour any agreement, their track record proves it.
Iran continues firing.

It's more of a question of what Iran didn't compromised for a peace deal , as Iran was the defensive side in this conflict, defending its objectives.

Achieved Regime's objective of surviving & remaining in control of Iran.

Still retaining its nuclear material & not compromising on its nuclear program to reach a deal with the U.S.

Iranian proxies still alive & active in the region.

Still retaining significant ability to retaliate over long distances.


Though they also made Strategic gains, they now Have much more control on hormuz strait than they had before, even talks of Iran wanting to Tax ships passing through it.


The only Objective U.S. & Israel were able to Partially achieve is degradation of Iranian military power & civilian infra.
Ok so just not dying completely is victory. We shall see how the IRGC handles the new economic situation and what happens within those 2 weeks and after them.
 
Iran continues firing.


Ok so just not dying completely is victory. We shall see how the IRGC handles the new economic situation and what happens within those 2 weeks and after them.
Victory is determined by what objectives were set and to what extent those objectives were achieved.


In this war, it was U.S. & Israel that were setting the objectives for themselves to achieve and for Iran to Defend against.

Iran achieved a Costly victory in strategic sense.
 
Victory is determined by what objectives were set and to what extent those objectives were achieved.


In this war, it was U.S. & Israel that were setting the objectives for themselves to achieve and for Iran to Defend against.

Iran achieved a Costly victory in strategic sense.
All objectives set by Israel were achieved.
I assume at least most US objectives were also achieved.
 
All objectives set by Israel were achieved.
I assume at least most US objectives were also achieved.
Military objectives?

Or strategic ones?

Reportedly, It was Netanyahu that first urged trump for a possible *regime change* , so i consider that to be a strategic objective, regardless of what any side claims, also unable to take away Iranian capability to strike Israel.



Lowering the bar of objectives from the ones initially set, to claim victory.


U.S. negotiation position & Demands from the regime for a peace deal are lower than they were before the start of the conflict, that's not a win, that's a compromise, meanwhile Iranian demands have actually increased.


Post in thread '2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran and elsewhere in region - News and Discussion' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/2026-israeli–united-states-strikes-on-iran-and-elsewhere-in-region-news-and-discussion.51226/post-897515
 
Last edited:
All objectives set by Israel were achieved.
I assume at least most US objectives were also achieved.
GOLD, thank you ! You mean the "regime change", the "popular uprising" , the "complete destruction of Iran's mil capabilities" (while you report yourself that they are still firing stuff) ?
As for the US, they had objectives ? Really appart satisfying trumps narcisistic delusions and filling the pockets of well placed speculators, the US only has Israel telling it what to do as an "objective".
 
All objectives set by Israel were achieved.
I assume at least most US objectives were also achieved.
Is that so? Lets examine contents of Iranian plan, which is supposed to be the basis for peace agreement:
1. No future attacks on Iran;
2. Maintaining Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz;
3. Ending uranium enrichment;
4. Lifting all sanctions;
5. Ending UN and IAEA resolutions;
6. Compensating Iran for damages;
7. Withdrawal of US troops from the region;

8. Ceasefire everywhere.

If these were to be implemented, it would be a defeat for the US and its Gulf allies. And it would be a strategic disaster for Israel, since not only Iran will maintain its proxies, its missile programm, but its economy would be invigorated with a steady (and massive) cash flow, while the same regime not only remains in charge, but is aliviated from internal pressure due to improved economic conditions.

But taking into account Trump's record of using peace talks as cover for preparation of further strikes and his habit of breaking agreements, I estimate that probability of further hostilities during or after two week period is extremelly high. This is not over yet.
 
Last edited:
If you don't consider the deliberate targeting and killing of 1,400 civilians to be the actions of a terrorist group, then we have a problem.
Of these, over 300 were military and police.

Do you view the Israeli government and its military forces as a "Zionist terrorist entity"? This is the designation given by the Iranian government. If you don't quite agree with the other parts, that's fine — then let's just talk about "terrorist." Do you agree with that? Do you agree with the Iranian government's designation of "terrorist" for the Israeli government and its military forces?

If the insinuation is that they're co-operating, surely they'd want to keep that quiet, which doesn't involve publicising an official apology.
They are not necessarily allies in terms of funding, training, or weapons. But this ambiguity is strange.
 
But taking into account Trump's record of using peace talks as cover for preparation of further strikes and his habit of breaking agreements

Everybody does that, talks are just that, talks. They are not binding.

When Germany was negotiating with France to put an end to WW1, the war, plans for future frontline operations, logistical preparations, etc... were going on on both sides. Peace talks are not truces and nothing is definite until it is signed by both sides. Until then, all is fair.

If one says "Trump is using the peace talks as a cover for..." then one should also point out the same regarding Iran. And Iran, along with its proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah, also have an extensive track record of exploiting peace talks and negotiations to further their own goals.

That's how things work. That's how they have always worked.
 
Military objectives?

Or strategic ones?

Reportedly, It was Netanyahu that first urged trump for a possible *regime change* , so i consider that to be a strategic objective, regardless of what any side claims, also unable to take away Iranian capability to strike Israel.
The Israeli objectives were as following:
  1. Dismantle Iran's DIB
  2. Dismantle Iran's nuclear program.
  3. Create the conditions for regime change.
Notice that it says "create the conditions" because this objective is the furthest from Israeli+American control. They can only push things in a direction, but not do the complete regime change entirely on their own.
Throughout the war, the IRGC's and Basij's command structure and some field elements were struck. Its GLOCs around Tehran were struck. As well as its financial system through which it pays its soldiers.
I do not know to what extent IRGC's internal security forces were degraded, but it is possible to say that conditions for regime change were certainly improved.
The DIB and nuclear program are not entirely atomized, and the enriched uranium is a persistent issue. But they remain significantly degraded and far more than they have been in the 12 day war.

As for the US, they had objectives ? Really appart satisfying trumps narcisistic delusions and filling the pockets of well placed speculators, the US only has Israel telling it what to do as an "objective".
Yes it had objectives, of course.
GOLD, thank you ! You mean the "regime change", the "popular uprising" , the "complete destruction of Iran's mil capabilities"
Regime change was never an official objective of either the US or Israel.

If these were to be implemented, it would be a defeat for the US and its Gulf allies. And it would be a strategic disaster for Israel, since not only Iran will maintain its proxies, its missile programm, but its economy would be invigorated with a steady (and massive) cash flow, while the same regime not only remains in charge, but is aliviated from internal pressure due to improved economic conditions.
Of Iran's 10 point plan, only one parameter is fulfilled - Iranian control over the SoH. All other parameters were not implemented. It is a huge IF indeed.
Iran's main request was a permanent end to hostilities, for which there is no sign yet. Certainly no sign of sanctions relief either.
But taking into account Trump's record of using peace talks as cover for preparation of further strikes and his habit of breaking agreements, I estimate that probability of further hostilities during or after two week period is extremelly high. This is not over yet.
2 week ceasefires do have a tendency of being temporary and not permanent, yes.
There has been a large recorded movement of US forces since before the ceasefire and even until now such reports come in.
 
Israel appears to be taking the opportunity to substantially ramp up its strikes on Hezbollah.

Last week, the IDF's 98th division made a series of tactical errors. A force of paratroopers and a special combat engineering unit were supposed to conduct a covert movement but the planned route was highly visible and vulnerable, with a bottlenecked part that Hezbollah ranged for artillery, and the SoF moved in excavators when they had to be covert. Despite objections, the operational plan was executed in that problematic state.
When the force reached the ranged area, Hezbollah rained ~400 rockets and munitions on them. There were many injured and IIRC 1 KIA.
Despite having a pre-approved aerial coverage, it was not executed.
The force withdrew and left the engineering equipment. The IDF had the option to provide fire coverage to the engineering equipment, but that was not executed either.
Hezbollah then approached the equipment and booby-trapped it. Leading to some of the equipment being subsequently destroyed from the air. The rest of the equipment was safely recovered.

Source: Shai Levi.

This involves many layers of errors across the chain of command, but lacking air coverage is one part of it. It cannot be denied that Israel is struggling to maintain appropriate levels of operational tempo in Lebanon and Iran simultaneously, given how demanding the Iran strikes are, an ongoing maneuver in Lebanon, and the protracted period of high intensity operations since Oct 7th.


 
Of these, over 300 were military and police.
Okay, so the other 1100 that they shot point blank, including children? And at a peace concert where, ironically, the people most sympathetic to Palestinians were.
Do you view the Israeli government and its military forces as a "Zionist terrorist entity"? This is the designation given by the Iranian government. If you don't quite agree with the other parts, that's fine — then let's just talk about "terrorist." Do you agree with that? Do you agree with the Iranian government's designation of "terrorist" for the Israeli government and its military forces?
'Zionist' - I don't know, it's very difficult to tell due to the actions of the other side. I went through a phase when I was younger where I kind of did, but the other side just made it completely impossible to defend or excuse their actions and forced me away from that opinion. Looking back, post UN mandate, nearly every land seizure was in response to hostile actions of other parties. Same thing, over and over again. Now the other side wants back what they fought so hard and stupidly to lose in the first place. If only they'd done nothing from 1947 onwards, then there'd be a clear view of who is what, now it's just a mess.

Iran, on the otherhand, has been asking for it over and over again. I have zero doubts about that. They've used proxies to constantly provoke both the US (and coalition forces) and Israel and other neighbours and take over Yemen and when confronted they've lashed out at everybody, including non-participants in ways that don't comply with International Law, in fact, almost specifically and exclusively in ways that don't comply with International Law. Now they're trying to impose a levy on non-participants, just for being US allies. If they want money to reconstruct infrastructure, they could save plenty of money by not funding terror groups, building thousands of BMs and digging giant holes to enrich Uranium in.

They are not necessarily allies in terms of funding, training, or weapons. But this ambiguity is strange.
Self-preservation, it's easy taking credit for terror attacks thousands of miles away on a different continent but when you're next door to the offended party, not so much. Kind of like how many people talk crap about pro-fighters while watching them on TV, but if they met them in the street, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Well, considering the overwhelming force against them...
Epstein:
Regime change failed,
Rocket program is alive,
Proxies are alive,
Nuclear program is alive,

Iran
Control over strait gained (against superpower logic and against customary international law);
Non-nuclear deterrence v Gulf effectively proven;

Israel:
Bombed everyone more,
Didn't suffer

USA
Status of US bases close to Iran in question. What's their point now?

Gulf
Political intriguing turned into Fafo

Honestly, Akela missed his kill. The problem isn't defeat, the problem is kill.
 
The Israeli objectives were as following:
  1. Dismantle Iran's DIB
  2. Dismantle Iran's nuclear program.
  3. Create the conditions for regime change.
Notice that it says "create the conditions" because this objective is the furthest from Israeli+American control. They can only push things in a direction, but not do the complete regime change entirely on their own.
Throughout the war, the IRGC's and Basij's command structure and some field elements were struck. Its GLOCs around Tehran were struck. As well as its financial system through which it pays its soldiers.
I do not know to what extent IRGC's internal security forces were degraded, but it is possible to say that conditions for regime change were certainly improved.
The DIB and nuclear program are not entirely atomized, and the enriched uranium is a persistent issue. But they remain significantly degraded and far more than they have been in the 12 day war

So.

1, is degraded but not dismantled.
2, is degraded but not dismantled.
3, failed.

So, Israel did not achieve all its objectives, 2 with partial progress to varying degrees + 1 failed.

&

some new once also need to be added.


4, Iran's influence over hormuz increasing.

5, U.S.'s future ability to support Israel against Iran in any future war, will face even more scrutiny among U.S. public.

6, Allies will be even less likely to provide bases to U.S. in any future similar war.

7, GCC countries are also less likely to support any similar future action, which they did in this case believing the Iranian regime is in its weakest form in decades.

8, U.S. & Israel's negotiation position weakened compared to before the war.

8, High chances of Iran accelerating its nuclear program & trying to complete it as fast as possible, unlike before where they were using their nuclear program as a tool for getting sanction relief.







& just because IRGC's internal security abilities are degraded, doesn't mean chances of uprising increases, successful uprisings need means & resources(often external support), leaders, Planning, consolidation, direction for the crowd, ability to sustain the momentum, etc.

Its not just people are angry so they will topple the government.

With Internet shutdown, Iranian regime had successfully suppressed external support & ability of dissidents to organise in large numbers.

& by now, Dissidents of Iran doesn't have any of those, lot are directionless & looking for humanitarian assistance.
Not just that, this conflict must have also created more supporters for the regime, especially among people that were in between supporting vs hating the regime.
 
50% tariffs on y'all
I doubt this is related to China and Russia. A trade war right now may not be in anyone's best interests.
Machinery and tooling manufaturers across the US, Europe, and Asia, could be the implied target here, as these often manage to bypass sanctions and reach places like Russia, Iran, and China.
 
So.

1, is degraded but not dismantled.
2, is degraded but not dismantled.
3, failed.
Semantics.
"Degrade" could mean any level of degradation, even shallow.
"Dismantle" implies a significant level of degradation.

The reason no one should infer "totally 100% destroyed" is because destruction only lasts until it is rebuilt. Iran can rebuild. But it stands to reason the US+Israel worked to maximally degrade Iran's DIB and nuclear program, such that restoration work would either take a very long time, or compounded with the economical impact - would not be feasible to prewar levels.
A more shallow level of degradation was achieved in the 12 Day War, so it is important to make that distinction.

So, Israel did not achieve all its objectives, 2 with partial progress to varying degrees + 1 failed.
I assume you mean the following failed:
  1. Create the conditions for regime change.
Can you explain in what way it failed?
some new once also need to be added.


4, Iran's influence over hormuz increasing.

5, U.S.'s future ability to support Israel against Iran in any future war, will face even more scrutiny among U.S. public.

6, Allies will be even less likely to provide bases to U.S. in any future similar war.

7, GCC countries are also less likely to support any similar future action, which they did in this case believing the Iranian regime is in its weakest form in decades.

8, U.S. & Israel's negotiation position weakened compared to before the war.

8, High chances of Iran accelerating its nuclear program & trying to complete it as fast as possible, unlike before where they were using their nuclear program as a tool for getting sanction relief.
These obviously aren't objectives. You're trying to add to a list of Israeli war objectives but I'm assuming you're just listing problems. So in the order you wrote them:

4. Iran always had influence over the SoH. Its influence did not increase. It simply started an extortion campaign which it withheld until 2023.
Over the long term, Iran has set itself to only gradually lose influence.
A basic principle of commodity trade is that if you're being a nuisance, others will figure out how to bypass you.
The East-West and Fujairah pipelines are two examples of how the GCC can already bypass ~50% of prewar SoH output.
Such SoH-bypass projects are only set to expand.

5. The US has indeed many internal problems, as the information space is being increasingly filled with disinformation. I agree with you on this, and I believe every country should take care to shield its population from foreign disinformation campaigns.

6. GCC allies have maintained the US's basing rights. Europe withdrew some basing rights. This is a negative action but with positive outcome to the US as it can now recalculate its global positioning and prepare better for the future.
The intent to prevent US presence in Europe was always there, it simply became apparent now.
Better now than in a more intense war.
Also, the US has many options for retaliation. Once these are realized, it is quite likely Europe will be more receptive to basing American forces.

7. The GCC did not provide any meaningful assistance beyond some basing rights.
A reduction of assistance would likely mean removal of basing rights, but that wouldn't make sense given their increased level of dependence on the US, combined with the significant weakening of Iran.

8. That is an oxymoron. Iran never used its nuclear program for sanctions relief. The nuclear program is exactly why it came under sanctions, and its removal would provide relief.
Iran did rush toward a bomb, and that is one of the primary reasons for this war.
& just because IRGC's internal security abilities are degraded, doesn't mean chances of uprising increases, successful uprisings need means & resources(often external support), leaders, Planning, consolidation, direction for the crowd, ability to sustain the momentum, etc.
Yes it does. Your entire argument is that it's not 100%, but 60% > 40% so chances do in fact increase.

Not just that, this conflict must have also created more supporters for the regime, especially among people that were in between supporting vs hating the regime.
People who are on the sidelines are generally not inclined to go out on the street and risk their lives regardless. So that's a moot point.
 
Everybody does that, talks are just that, talks. They are not binding.
That is, tehnically, correct. However, when you announce diplomatic talks for the sole purpose of lulling attention of party you are supposedly 'negotiating' with just to later attack them, that eliminates goodwill and decreases the probability of negotiated settlement. Not only Trump did that, he also broke nuclear deal in 2018, an actual binding agreement USA had with Iran, which was discussed at length on previous pages. Taking all that into consideration, I don't think negotiations in good faith are very likely.
Of Iran's 10 point plan, only one parameter is fulfilled - Iranian control over the SoH. All other parameters were not implemented. It is a huge IF indeed.
Sure thing, nothing is settled yet. But keep in mind, that these are conditions Trump called "workable basis", not his own wishlist of 15, and, since Iran at this point is nowhere near beaten into submission, he'll have to compromise to get that enriched uranium.
It would be an absolute laugh riot, if after all these deaths since 2018 the master of deals makes a deal worse than what he had back in 2018, wouldn't it?
-------------------------------

Iran has officially allowed the first tanker through the Strait of Hormuz, and the FT is already leaking the terms and pricing:
▪️Each barrel of oil will cost $1, payable in cryptocurrency;
▪️Empty tankers can pass free of charge;
▪️Iran can inspect ships for weapons.
It's important to note that Iran isn't planning to charge a fee, but is already doing so, and rumor has it that it began doing so even before the ceasefire. Up to 20 million barrels per day have passed through the strait, so for Iran, this potentially translates into $20 million per day, $600 million per month, and around $7 billion per year, which is, aproximatelly 12.5% of Iran's pre-war yearly budget. That is not counting LNG and other goods, which are passing through the strait.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so the other 1100 that they shot point blank, including children? And at a peace concert where, ironically, the people most sympathetic to Palestinians were.
"Shot point blank" — is there a significant difference between a bullet fired from five meters away and a bomb dropped from a height of one kilometer? Does "shot point blank" better align with "deliberate targeting"?

In terms of intent, opening fire on Israeli civilians is no different from attacking a hospital in Gaza. In terms of the ratio of civilian to military and police casualties, there is no difference between Hamas and the IDF.

”The people most sympathetic to Palestinians“, those who are most sympathetic to Palestine are not a bunch of hippies — they are fighters, doctors and nurses, cooks, and the people of Palestinians who keep Palestinians alive.

'Zionist' - I don't know, it's very difficult to tell due to the actions of the other side. I went through a phase when I was younger where I kind of did, but the other side just made it completely impossible to defend or excuse their actions and forced me away from that opinion. Looking back, post UN mandate, nearly every land seizure was in response to hostile actions of other parties. Same thing, over and over again. Now the other side wants back what they fought so hard and stupidly to lose in the first place. If only they'd done nothing from 1947 onwards, then there'd be a clear view of who is what, now it's just a mess.
Hey, I wasn't talking about Zionism. Let's talk about "terrorist" — do you agree with the Iranian government's designation of the Israeli government and its armed forces as "terrorists"?

Self-preservation, it's easy taking credit for terror attacks thousands of miles away on a different continent but when you're next door to the offended party, not so much. Kind of like how many people talk crap about pro-fighters while watching them on TV, but if they met them in the street, not so much.
Pro-fight? Israel is by no means the victim — it is the oppressor. So whether you're sitting in front of a TV or standing on the street, you should condemn Israel. This is not talking crap not Pro-fight — it is an act of justice.

Pro-fight? The 2,000-pound bombs the US supplies to Israel are more pro-fight than my words could ever be.

”Thousands of miles away on a different continent“, oh, your geography is very good. Let me tell you something else then. Lubec, Maine, is 9,148 kilometers from Khamenei's residence and 10,232 kilometers from the Minab Girls' School.

What does the fall of the Iranian regime have to do with you? What reason do you have to be happy about it? "Oh, they've killed a lot of people" — the great president of Syria is a former ISIS member! He's much closer to you! Yet you shake his hand!
 
Iran, on the otherhand, has been asking for it over and over again.
I have never seen such a blatant reversal of blame. Iran is over a thousand kilometers away from Israel, so naturally it has no designs on Israeli land. As for its allies — the Hezbollah in Lebanon: it wasn't Hezbollah that entered Israel; Israel invaded Lebanon! As for its allies — the Hamasin in Gaza: Gaza is walled off, with no borders or landports of its own. How could they possibly seek to take Israeli land?

Will the Golan Heights be returned to Syria? The current president is not Assad. Will the West Bank be returned to Palestine? The east is much more moderate than the west. Will it happen? Will it happen? Will Israel, the "non-greedy, defensive" Israel, give it back?
 
Shot point blank" — is there a significant difference between a bullet fired from five meters away and a bomb dropped from a height of one kilometer? Does "shot point blank" better align with "deliberate targeting"?
Yes there is. The difference lies in the targeting process. The people involved in the process - their type and numbers. The unknowns, and the mechanisms in place to overcome unknowns.

In terms of intent, opening fire on Israeli civilians is no different from attacking a hospital in Gaza. In terms of the ratio of civilian to military and police casualties, there is no difference between Hamas and the IDF.
There is a difference, yes. To have no difference, the hospital would have to be attacked with the sole intent of killing civilians. Which demonstrably did not occur even once throughout a 2 year war.
 
Oil tankers are expected to avoid the Strait of Hormuz despite the US and Iran striking a deal to reopen the crucial Gulf shipping route.

Experts said vessel owners were not likely to send tankers back to the strait because of fears the ships could become stranded if a two-week ceasefire announced on Tuesday failed to hold.

It means vital oil and gas supplies from the Middle East will continue to be disrupted.

A fifth of the world’s energy exports normally passes through the crucial waterway, but supplies have been trapped in the Gulf since the war broke out.

This squeeze on oil and gas has already led to an energy crisis around the world, with soaring crude prices triggering higher pump prices for motorists.

Analysts fear that fuel costs will remain elevated if tankers continue to avoid the trade route, while the RAC has already warned that petrol and diesel prices were unlikely to fall without an uptick in oil shipments.

Oil prices plunged below $100 per barrel after Donald Trump announced a last-ditch ceasefire on Tuesday night on the condition that Iran would reopen the choke point.

However, tracking data revealed almost no new tanker movement through the strait on Wednesday.

Lars Jensen, a shipping analyst with Vespucci Maritime, said: “Technically speaking they could pull anchor and start moving now, but that is not what is likely to happen.

“I expect that what we will see in the next few days, if the ceasefire holds, is a lot of vessels exit the Persian Gulf but not very many vessels enter into the Persian Gulf.

“Shipping lines would be hesitant in trusting the longevity of the ceasefire at this point and therefore [would] try to get vessels out, so they can use them, but not risk putting new vessels into the Gulf that might then be trapped if the ceasefire breaks down.”

Mr Jensen said most ship owners would want to see details of the ceasefire and receive reassurances about the terms for passing through the Strait before committing. Any Iranian demands for payments are also likely to prove problematic.

He told BBC Radio 4: “The Iranians have said yes, you can pass through freely, but you need to coordinate with the Iranian military forces, and it’s unclear exactly what that means.

“The challenge would be if you pay a toll for going through you might actually be in violation of some of the US sanctions on Iran, which would have other repercussions.”

Peter Sand, a container shipping analyst at logistics specialist Xeneta, said the focus would be on getting all trapped vessels – including 130 container carriers – out of the Gulf, shipping as much oil and gas for export as possible, and sending supplies to cities such as Dubai, which have been largely starved of goods since the start of the war.

However, he said owners would want to be sure that any inbound ships could be extricated if the ceasefire broke down. That would limit sailings to vessels close enough to get into the Gulf, unload and get out again during the two weeks. That would mean ships already in Pakistan, India and ports such as Dar es Salaam, in Tanzania.

Even then, Mr Sand said most ships were likely to go no further than DP World’s Jebel Ali facility on the outskirts of Dubai – a container facility rather than an oil terminal – so that they can perform a quick turnaround if need be.

‘It’s still a war’​

He said: “Everybody is assessing the risk according to their own guidance but as the ceasefire is specifically stating two weeks, nobody is planning a full return.

“It’s a positive development but one that will not see an immediate surge in ships. It is still a war. There’s a ceasefire, but the uncertainty is just as great.”

Maersk, the world’s second-largest container line, said on Wednesday that the halt in the conflict did not provide enough certainty over security for normal operations to resume.

“At this point, we take a cautious approach, and we are not making any changes to specific services,” the Danish group said ‌in a ‌statement.

“The ceasefire may create transit opportunities, but it does not yet provide full ‌maritime certainty and we need ⁠to understand all potential conditions attached.”

Neil Roberts, the head of marine and aviation at Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA), said: “It can be expected that the ships previously unable to leave will now try to do so as soon as the owners and master deem it is safe to do so.”

However, he added: “It is highly unlikely that trade into the Gulf will simply resume. The region remains at heightened risk with none of the underlying tensions resolved.”
 
That is, tehnically, correct. However, when you announce diplomatic talks for the sole purpose of lulling attention of party you are supposedly 'negotiating' with just to later attack them, that eliminates goodwill and decreases the probability of negotiated settlement. Not only Trump did that, he also broke nuclear deal in 2018, an actual binding agreement USA had with Iran, which was discussed at length on previous pages. Taking all that into consideration, I don't think negotiations in good faith are very likely.

And how do you prove "intent" exactly?

And the Iran nuclear deal was already violated to begin with by Iran. Declaring it null and void only makes it official.
 
have never seen such a blatant reversal of blame. Iran is over a thousand kilometers away from Israel, so naturally it has no designs on Israeli land. As for its allies — the Hezbollah in Lebanon: it wasn't Hezbollah that entered Israel; Israel invaded Lebanon! As for its allies — the Hamasin in Gaza: Gaza is walled off, with no borders or landports of its own. How could they possibly seek to take Israeli land?
Hamas invaded on Oct 7th and held land inside Israel, IIRC, for about 3 days.
Hezbollah invaded on Oct 8th. It did not manage to gain any territory. Its incompetence should not be confused with lack of intent.
Hamas's force of 3,000 Nukhba fighters was paralleled by Hezbollah's 5,000 Radwan fighters.
On the 19th of October 2023 the Houthis joined.
Iraqi PMF by then also joined.
And Iran joined as well in April of 2024.


Will it happen? Will it happen? Will Israel, the "non-greedy, defensive" Israel, give it back?
To whom?
 
And the Iran nuclear deal was already violated to begin with by Iran. Declaring it null and void only makes it official.
Trump was campaining on promises to break it all the way back in 2016. Now the reasons for breaking the said deal are being invented retroactively.
And how do you prove "intent" exactly?
Not sure I understood you correctly, but I assume you mean intent to use negotiations as a smokescreen for kinetic operations.
It is all rather obvious, when you publicly announce that your negotiations are "making great progress" few days before you are starting to murder leadership of the party you are supposedly was making good progress with.
 
Trump was campaining on promises to break it all the way back in 2016. Now the reasons for breaking the said deal are being invented retroactively.
Can you provide evidence for this claim?
And why would the IAEA cooperate with the US in establishing a portfolio of Iranian JCPOA violations?
 
Yes there is. The difference lies in the targeting process. The people involved in the process - their type and numbers. The unknowns, and the mechanisms in place to overcome unknowns.
In terms of the outcome, there is no difference between an infrared pod worth millions of dollars and the human eye. Whatever you’ve said does not reduce civilian casualties. Israel killed many civilians in the past, now, future.

There is a difference, yes. To have no difference, the hospital would have to be attacked with the sole intent of killing civilians. Which demonstrably did not occur even once throughout a 2 year war.
Killing civilians is not the sole purpose of Hamas either. Among the 1,400 deaths, nearly 400 were military or police personnel.

Israel will bomb an entire hospital over a 'Hamas camera.' Not a fighter, not an RPG—just a camera.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom