Under One Tent -- U.S. & Israel Wage War On Iran

1. 88

   My Esotericposted 4 days ago

   "Trump says Iran will ‘pay the price’ for taking too long to negotiate"
   
   Yeah, yeah, we have heard that 38 times before. When will new outlets stop showing Trump in a negative light by posting his phony threats?
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/09/world/li … ump-israel

   replyreport
   1. 85

      IslandBitesposted 4 days agoin reply to this

      "Master negotiator".

      replyreport
      1. 88

         My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

         He is negotiating his way to putting boots on the ground in Iran
         
         "Trump warns the US will seize key Iranian oil export hub Kharg Island"

         replyreport
2. 88

   My Esotericposted 3 days ago

   "How Trump has deceived himself on Iran"
   
   This says it all about Trump, lol.
   
   "President Donald Trump is nothing if not studied at crafting elaborate alternate realities.
   
   But for the last two and a half months or so, he conjured one that seemed primarily aimed at deceiving himself.
   
   He painted Iran as desperate to cut a deal, which always seemed to be right around the corner. And he repeatedly gave Tehran the benefit of the doubt, relaxed his own deadlines, walked back his threats and downplayed Iran’s provocations and apparent ceasefire violations.
   
   The problem with that approach was it made it pretty clear that Trump lacked the will to go back to war — that he preferred to just be done with it all, even as Iran played on his reluctance.
   
   And it increasingly appears as though Trump hoping against hope just delayed an inevitable return to the kind of hostilities that have resumed this week.
   
   Trump’s fanciful treatment of a potential deal with Iran appears to have mostly prolonged the war and its economic pain — and brought the situation closer to the 2026 midterm elections, which increasingly loom as a major leverage point for Iran."
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/11/politics … g-analysis

   replyreport
3. 88

   My Esotericposted 3 days ago

   "Trump says US ‘ended the war with Iran,’ though Tehran has yet to confirm a deal"
   
   "The president said earlier Thursday that he expected a signing ceremony for an agreement in the coming days. But an Iranian official denied any final deal had been reached."
   
   QUESTION - which pathological liar is telling truth?
   
   https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/11/world/li … israel-hnk

   replyreport
4. 88

   My Esotericposted 41 hours ago

   "• US-Iran agreement: Key mediator Pakistan says a potential agreement between the US and Iran is “likely expected” to be finalized in “the next 24 hours,” before being signed and followed by technical talks next week. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment."
   
   At least it is not the pathological liars making such a claim, but only time will tell.
   
   As to how we got here - remember that it is demonstrably 100% Trump's fault - 100%. Had he not pulled America out of the JCPOA none of this would have happened - none of it!!!
   
   * Most importantly, But for Trump Iran would NOT have hundreds of pounds of highly enriched Uranium!!
   
   * But for Trump Iran would not have been as close as it is (which isn't very close at all) to putting together a working nuclear bomb!!!
   
   * But for Trump, the United States would not now be trying to negotiate its way back to restrictions similar to the ones he threw away!!
   
   The TRUTH of the above is UNDENIABLE by those with an open mind.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 40 hours agoin reply to this

      I don’t think you can honestly reduce this to “100% Trump’s fault.” That’s way too absolute for something as complex as Iran’s nuclear program and US–Iran relations, which have been evolving under multiple administrations for decades.
      
      I also don’t buy the idea that everything started and ended with one decision. Iran was already advancing its nuclear capabilities before the JCPOA, and after the U.S. left the deal, yes things escalated, but Iran’s response, regional tensions, sanctions pressure, and its own strategic choices all played a role too.
      
      And honestly, the JCPOA itself wasn’t some perfect long-term solution either. It had serious limitations, including the fact that some key restrictions were set to phase out around 2027, which meant it was always going to need major renegotiation or replacement.
      
      On top of that, there were real concerns about enforcement—especially around inspections. The IAEA didn’t always have automatic access to every site, and in some cases access had to go through managed procedures or approvals, which critics argued created potential gaps in verification. That was always one of the weak points in the deal.
      
      I think it’s fair to say the withdrawal changed the situation and may have made things worse in some ways, but saying “none of this would have happened” just doesn’t hold up. Foreign policy outcomes almost never come down to a single person or a single decision.
      
      And the “pathological liars” type of language just weakens the argument. If the goal is to be taken seriously, it’s better to stick to facts and keep it proportional.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         peoplepower73posted 40 hours agoin reply to this

         Whatever the down sides were, they were a hell of a lot better than what Trump has gotten us into. Iran is playing him like a yoyo with his cease fire one day and attacks the next day.
         
         Trump says they are ready to give up their stockpile and the next day, Iran says they never said that. Trump and his con about putting a positive spin on everything he touches is not working in this scenario.
         
         Whether you like it or not, Trump is a pathological liar.  You just can't face the facts. That is all part of his deal making driven by his need to be admired for what he does. He has all the behavior and traits of person who is suffering from extreme narcissism, again, whether you like it or not.
         
         Foreign policies outcomes do come down to a single person when you have someone in charge who has control of all the branches of the government.  You are going to say he doesn't, but he does, you just can't face the facts...Good to see you back again.

         replyreport
      2. 88

         My Esotericposted 40 hours agoin reply to this

         Yes, as I proved, I can reduce this to 100% Trump's fault. Let me repeat myself:
         
         
         * Most importantly, But for Trump Iran would NOT have hundreds of pounds of highly enriched Uranium!!
         
         * But for Trump Iran would not have been as close as it is (which isn't very close at all) to putting together a working nuclear bomb!!!
         
         * But for Trump, the United States would not now be trying to negotiate its way back to restrictions similar to the ones he threw away!!
         
         What more is there to know?
         
         "Iran was already advancing its nuclear capabilities before the JCPOA, " - ISN'T the key word there "BEFORE"? AFTER JCPOA, that all stopped. Consequently, i am not sure what point you were trying to make.
         
         "and after the U.S. left the deal, yes things escalated, but Iran’s response, regional tensions, sanctions pressure, and its own strategic choices all played a role too." - Do you mean Iran's response to Trump's aggression or do you mean their already established MO that the JCPOA did not address?
         
         "And honestly, the JCPOA itself wasn’t some perfect long-term solution either." - WHO ever said it was? Wasn't the JCPOA designed to do just a single thing - stop Iran's nuclear ambitions? Seems to me it was a success in that regard, one Trump was responsible for destroying.
         
         "On top of that, there were real concerns about enforcement—especially around inspections. The IAEA didn’t always have automatic access ..."[/i - BUT wouldn't you agree that even given those relatively small flaws, stopping Iran's nuclear program was worth it?
         
         [i]"I think it’s fair to say the withdrawal changed the situation and may have made things worse in some ways, but saying “none of this would have happened” just doesn’t hold up. Foreign policy outcomes almost never come down to a single person or a single decision." - BUT in this case it did - BUT FOR TRUMP ...
         
         As to Pathological liar - what you say would be true IF it were wrong - but it isn't.
         
         Here is the definition of pathological liar again. A pathological liar is someone who compulsively lies, often without a clear reason or benefit,
         
         Do you actually deny that is what Trump and the Iranian regime are?

         replyreport
5. 88

   My Esotericposted 39 hours ago

   As of today, this is what the MOU is 'supposed" to accomplish (with annotations comparing it to the JCPOA):
   
   1. Extend or formalize a ceasefire. Several reports describe a 60-day ceasefire extension. (under the JCPOA there was no war)
   
   2. Reopen the Strait of Hormuz, apparently within 30 days. (Under the JCPOA, the Striates were already open).
   
   3. U.S. naval de-escalation / blockade relief. The U.S. would gradually lift or reduce its naval blockade of Iranian ports, reportedly over about 30 days, (under the JPCOA there was no need for a blockade)
   
   4. Iran pledges not to develop nuclear weapons. (under the JCPOA Iran DID abandon its nuclear weapons program and the Supreme Leader issued a fatwa stating that.
   
   5. Deal with Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. (under the JCPOA the highly enriched stockpile was removed only to be replaced when Trump pulled the US out of the deal)
   
   6. Short technical negotiations to follow. The MOU would be followed by technical talks next week or within a short window. (under the JCPOA the negotiations were concluded)
   
   7. Sanctions relief and frozen assets, but likely phased. (under the JCPOA, there were sanctions relief and some unfrozen assets, but Trump highly criticized the agreement. Now he is all for it, go figure)
   
   8. Lebanon / Hezbollah front. Some reporting says Iran wants a ceasefire or de-escalation in Lebanon included, (not part of the JCPOA)
   
   9. International inspections: Not mentioned in the MOU but a critical part of the JCPOA
   
   10. Centrifuge restrictions: The JCPOA had several provisions that limited Iran's use of centrifuges. The MOU is silent on this.
   
   11. There were a dozen other provisions in the JCPOA that limited Iran's ability to produce nuclear bombs, none of which appear to be in the MOU.
   
   It took 18 months to hammer out the JCPOA. Trump wants it done in 60 days. Iran is happy to go along with that because they know nothing will be accomplished in 60-days.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 33 hours agoin reply to this

      So, ESO, do you think that Trump is going to settle for half a loaf? I see certain Iranian positions as not negotiable. Will he do much better than the JCPOA from the Obama period? Even if the agreement is comparable, we have to figure in the deaths of thousands and the bottle neck to world economies that the Obama agreement was able to avoid. Putting that upon the scale eliminates any idea of a comparable resolution between Trump and Obama.
      
      Is this a “win-win”? I doubt it.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         My Esotericposted 29 hours agoin reply to this

         The way I see if, it will barely be 10% of a loaf. That said, I guess something is better than nothing if it stops more Americans from dying.

         replyreport