US spent vast amounts of money on not achieving any meaningful objective, while at the same time granting the opposition items from their long-term wish list (removal of sanctions). That's a loss.
If Iran's leaders' brains are not made of rotten oatmeal, they will massively accelerate their nuclear weapons program with their windfall.
> If Iran's leaders' brains are not made of rotten oatmeal, they will massively accelerate their nuclear weapons program with their windfall.
How can you possibly arrive at this conclusion? Besides Russia, China, Pakistan, or North Korea giving them money and expertise they aren’t going to just be able to “accelerate” their nuclear weapons program after being so thoroughly damaged.
If Iran (remind me why are they pursuing nuclear weapons again?) continues their program we will just blow it up again. They’re simply not going to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. There is no possible acceleration here. If they start loading up on missiles again to try and close the straight and use that as leverage so they can build nuclear weapons and then really close the straight and hold oil shipments hostage we will blow those up too.
(More to my point, "accelerate" does not imply any given velocity. It means move it fast-er. Notably, one must accelerate from a complete stop to move at all.)
Every state that feels threatened must see acquisition of nuclear weapons (or acquiring a nuclear-armed protector) as Job #1. Maybe they buy using the new windfall from the toll on the Strait, maybe they use their own know-how. Maybe a combination.
But yeah, every leader needs to get their country under a nuclear umbrella. Any leader who is not will be replaced for delinquency.
It's abundantly clear that we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba are just the earliest examples. Entirely possible US didn't invade Greenland due to its nuclear protection. Would Israel be cleansing (ethnically) large swathes of Lebanon if there was a risk they could lose Tel Aviv this afternoon? But now it is clear that we are (again) in a geopolitical environment in which the strongest can take whatever they want from the weak. Demonstrated nuclear capability is the only clear deterrent.
Just to be clear, there won't be any tolls on the Straight. If I had a way to make you put up money on this 1-1 I would, but unfortunately I don't. US won't tolerate it, Gulf States won't tolerate it, nor should the rest of the world tolerate being extorted. Same thing with Putin - can't live under a threat of nuclear bombing of London all the time and cower in fear at these awful regimes. Also, obviously, showing the need for the US to stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb.
> It's abundantly clear that we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation. Ukraine, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba are just the earliest examples.
Ukraine is the outlier here as the only peaceful country not run by lunatics who are starving and depriving their people of freedom, so let's set that aside.
Venezuela - over 8 million refugees, total economic collapse, all under Chavez and Maduro who enriched themselves and their henchmen at the cost of the people of Venezuela.
Iran - killed 30,000 of its own people (confirmed by the US and EU), is currently recruiting child soldiers, funds terrorist groups (all designated as such by the US and EU) such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis to launch rockets and missiles at people just living their daily lives.
Cuba - A little less straightforward, admittedly, given the history but at the end of the day was working with Venezuela's government to oppress its people and plays nice with Russia who invaded Ukraine.
Nah, none of these countries should have nuclear weapons. As an aside w.r.t Ukraine I'm generally against more countries obtaining nukes, though I guess the good news is we can bomb the ones we don't want to have nukes and let the good ones we do want to have nukes get them like Japan and South Korea so they can blow up China and North Korea if they start shit. But maybe we should get more countries to have nukes. Argentina for example since they've been super cooperative - let's put them under the umbrella and give them nukes. Hmm who else. Taiwan? Yea that would be good. Oh oh and the Baltics and Ukraine if we did give them nukes that could end the war and put Russia in its place right? Oh and since Iran wanted to get a nuke, it's only fair that Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Iraq all get nukes too, right? You know what, Trump is a big fan of the AfD in Germany. Maybe they should carve out some territory they like and we'll give them a nuke so that way Berlin leaves them alone. Why not? Anyone that feels threatened is entitled to a nuclear weapon.
Do you see how stupid and quickly escalatory this is? That's why folks are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation.
> Entirely possible US didn't invade Greenland due to its nuclear protection.
I think mostly because Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate pushed back on this. Europe isn't going to nuke the United States over Greenland - that's complete nonsense and wouldn't accomplish anything.
> Would Israel be cleansing (ethnically) large swathes of Lebanon if there was a risk they could lose Tel Aviv this afternoon?
Israel has nukes right? So next time Hezbollah launches rockets at Israel from southern Lebanon - boom Beirut up in smokes. Just. Like. That.
Be realistic.
Not going to debate this, since you seem to know more than the people negotiating this. I can only go by what negotiators (you?) have publicly released through official channels, which is that Iran and Oman will get a windfall at the expense of free maritime navigation.
> Do you see how stupid and quickly escalatory this is?
Yes? To be clear, I am against nuclear non-proliferation. I also understand that internal politics will lean towards populations not being terrorized by their neighbors. I understand that non-proliferation depends on nuclear powers acting responsibly and underwriting a semblance of a security regime. The best course of action would be for the big nuclear powers to act in ways aligned with long-term peace and nonproliferation.
But they are very much doing the opposite. The big nuclear powers are engaging in piracy and seeking to redivide the globe. In those circumstances, it would be folly for countries not to get their own deterrent.
> boom Beirut up in smokes
Yes, look at videos of Beirut today. That is exactly what is happening.
https://www.voiceofemirates.com/en/news/2026/04/08/oman-deni...
You don't have to be a negotiator to understand this stuff. Oman hosts a US air base - how are they going to charge another US ally like Saudi Arabia (for ex) for shipping oil if the US says no you're not - and we have said that. This is even crazier than suggesting Iran gets to do it.
Can you please post your specific sources informing you of these things that you believe? I'd like to also read them to better understand what others are thinking. Like where are you reading - the exact article - that the US and Gulf States agreed to pay a fee to Iran and Oman to have ships transit the straight. Who signed off on that agreement for the US for example? It should be in the article.
> Yes, look at videos of Beirut today. That is exactly what is happening.
Israel dropped a nuclear bomb on Beirut today? Jeez. That's unfortunate. But hey, countries need to have nukes to defend themselves and if Hezbollah isn't going to stop, boom straight to the big stuff because that's how the world works.
shows the US agreeing to acceptance of the Iranian 10-point plan as a basis for negotiation. You can find those 10 points from a source you trust, but they include reparations to Iran in the form of payments from ships transiting the Strait.
> Oman hosts a US air base
The 10-point plan also requires the US to remove its combat forces from the region.
> Who signed off on that agreement for the US for example
The President posted this, so it's likely the most official artifact available to the public. Likely nothing is signed yet, it appears the President did not even get Israel onside before announcing so the ceasefire may not make it to the weekend.
wrt Beirut. I don't know how to convey that Israel is only operating the way they are in Lebanon because they do not feel the existential threat that comes with a nuclear deterrent. I'm not really sure I understand your position that nuclear weapons do not deter.
It's ok to just admit you were wrong.
> I don't know how to convey that Israel is only operating the way they are in Lebanon because they do not feel the existential threat that comes with a nuclear deterrent.
If Lebanon had a nuclear weapon they'd probably use it on Hezbollah so they can reassert control over their territory and stop those maniacs from trying to start wars.
> I'm not really sure I understand your position that nuclear weapons do not deter.
Israel has nuclear weapons yet Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran have not been deterred from attacking Israel. Countries don't just launch nukes the second they feel they are under threat.
I mean, nobody can be evaluated as right or wrong today about what will happen in two weeks. We shall have to wait and see!
Which negotiators from official channels have stated this?
I'm of course arguing that this won't happen for a variety of reasons, but I'm also arguing that nobody on the US and friends side has agreed to this at all, and Oman from what reporting I have is against it as well though you've suggested they would get a windfall.
And keep in mind that no agreement, apparently not even the ceasefire, have been signed. So this is all armchair analysis from all sides (except you, because you apparently already know).
In any case, it's not clear the cease fire will make it to the weekend so we will all (except you, who have the benefit of already knowing) have to sit tight to find out what happens.
Of course if Iran's government stopped being so fucking crazy the US would be happy to provide economic aid. The US even offered nuclear power to Iran for free, which they turned down. [1]
I'm not believing any citation you provide because you haven't provided any. You looked at Iran's plan (which doesn't matter) and then decided that somehow they had the leverage and the US and Gulf States would agree and have but no choice to pay Iran shipping fees. This is incorrect. Nothing was agreed to. Iran's proposal is mostly worthless, and you're making stuff up.
[1] https://www.rferl.org/a/us-says-iran-rejected-nuclear-offer-...
As part of that effort, Washington offered to support a civilian nuclear program for Iran, *including a proposal to supply nuclear fuel free of charge on a long-term basis*.The OP is in favor of nuclear proliferation and they're asserting a moralistic argument that since the US is big bad guy that its in the interest of these other countries to get nuclear weapons to prevent big bad guy from stopping them from doing things like murdering their own people or using their domestic oil industry to enrich themselves and their henchmen.
But the US isn't big bad guy. It's acting in the interests of everyone including the people in those countries suffering under the direct actions of those regimes that run them. It's a common tactic of dictatorships, autocracies, fascists, communists, &c. to blame internal problems on external factors "colonialism", "great satan" to shield them from blame for these problems that they cause. We know this is true not just because it's just simply true, but because others continually accuse the Trump Administration of doing the same and being a fascist regime - he's just borrowing their tactics. Thankfully America is more resilient than that, but it's certainly concerning.
There does not appear to be an actual meaningful change in the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which does not make it a win. Of course, there's a broader loss which is that the US is strategically in a much worse position than it was a month ago. Reopening the Strait with free passage of ships would be a return to status quo ante bellum, but the US can't even manage that... which means that it's a major loss for the US, quite possibly the worst strategic loss in its entire history.
That’s why they were building all these missiles. Then when they are loaded up with thousands of more missiles the US wouldn’t be able to do anything about it or stop them from pursuing a nuclear weapon because they have too many missiles and the cost would be too great. The US is preventing a geopolitical (> strategic) defeat by acting now.
The US also lets the ships through because it’s just more oil on the market to keep prices low. Iran being able to shoot missiles doesn’t mean they control the straight. Otherwise the US also controls the straight because it can lob missiles at tankers. It’s been 5 weeks, let’s hold off on “possibly the worst strategic loss in all of American history” for a few weeks eh?
What would be the consequences? The same thing that already just happened? America punished them, killed their head of state as revenge for not having a nuke yet.
Interesting choice of words.
Let's try this again: the US implored for a ceasefire in exchange for Iran to stop destroying the economic base of US vassal states in the region and allow ships to go through the strait to mitigate the impending economic disaster this will have on the US economy.
Which one explains Trump abandoning all original demands regarding regime change and even threats to destroy civilian infrastructure?
Iran -> Ok we will agree to that.
The situation in the Straight already occurred. The US doesn't give a hoot about the short term economic base of these vassal states.
> Which one explains Trump abandoning all original demands regarding regime change and even threats to destroy civilian infrastructure?
The one I wrote does.
US -> Ok we will agree to that.
is surrender
Either way, thx for the laugh.
ships could register and pay the toll without having to take a stroll by iran's toll booth, so the volume of ships can go back up
Of course Iran wasn’t going to close the straight yet, they didn’t have the ability to inflict enough pain to deter US, Israeli, and/or Gulf State strikes to prevent them from closing it.
Why would I want to be paying them if you're, at the same time, telling me they don't have the muscle to make me pay?
Why is anyone paying Iran anything if we won? Someone's gonna need to explain that to me.
Via BBC:
-Complete cessation of the war on Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen
-Complete and permanent cessation of the war on Iran with no time limit
-Ending all conflicts in the region in their entirety
-Reopening the Strait of Hormuz
-Establishing a protocol and conditions to ensure freedom and security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz
-Full payment of compensation for reconstruction costs to Iran (via reparations in the form of USD2 Million per ship Hormuz fee to be shared with Oman[?] for some reason? Again, I don't understand why anyone is paying anything to anyone else?)
-Full commitment to lifting sanctions on Iran
-Release of Iranian funds and frozen assets held by the United States (Also to be used as reparations to Iran. Again, why?)
-Iran fully commits to not seeking possession of any nuclear weapons (More on this below. And it's a doozy.)
-Immediate ceasefire takes effect on all fronts immediately upon approval of the above conditions
------------
OK. Now that is the english language version. The Farsi version, which is not being reported in the media, contains the following language as well: "acceptance of enrichment". (Which again, to me, seems like it would be a non-starter.) The idea being that enrichment is a dual use technology I assume?
The full version isn't being reported in English language media, but the Administration has it. When asked about what's in the plan, the White House will only confirm that "yes", it is 15 points and not just the 10 we know about. So that answer at least confirms there are additional points. Which, again, even if there weren't added points, the 10 we know about mean that everyone still pays Iran for passage through the straits.
I'm gonna be honest here, this seems totally unworkable. I'll even go further, and characterize this as Iran giving us a list of conditions for our surrender. This is not acceptable. This is materially worse than the status quo that existed 2 months ago.
Jeez. Just do nothing!
Doing nothing would have been better than this.
This isn't answering what I asked though. This is a statement of Iranian talking points but there is no agreement, the US hasn't "capitulated", nor have further talks taken place. Nobody has agreed to pay Iran anything. It doesn't matter what they say.
When you write things like this:
> Which, again, even if there weren't added points, the 10 we know about mean that everyone still pays Iran for passage through the straits.
It's like who cares what they wrote in these 10 points? They can demand the moon be made of cheese too. There will be no paying to use the Strait because like other points in these 10 demands the US and Gulf States won't agree to it.
When Iran wrote this did you like, think that they made these demands and then other countries are trying to comply with them or something? It doesn't matter what Iran writes. It only matters what the US says will happen as we see fit.
> Doing nothing would have been better than this.
Doing nothing means the following:
- Iran continues to stock pile missiles - Iran gets to a point where they have so many missiles that it becomes untenable for the US to stop them from buying and building more missiles because the destruction they would create for Gulf States and others that they hold hostage aren't worth the risk - Because Iran can't be stopped they would continue their pursuit of a nuclear weapon
Then Iran can enact whatever toll they want on the Straight and there's nothing anyone can do about it and we're right here where we are now except the US has pulled out of the region and Iran's crazy regime is making billions from Gulf States and the international community by taxing trade. That's why the US struck now instead of waiting - if we wait there's nothing we can reasonably do!
Sit down and think this through for yourself. Of course you can argue "Iran wouldn't do that" but you have to take them at their word and through their activities which indicate that is indeed what they planned on doing. Doing nothing means we have a much, much bigger problem down the line. Doing something now means we can likely prevent that bigger problem from occurring in the first place.
It doesn’t matter anymore in any case as Israel just launched a massive barrage. So there will be no ceasefire now anyway.
Can you elaborate on how, exactly, ships would be able to evade the toll booth, if they have to pay the toll in any case?
Because on the surface of it, it sounds to me like Iran is tolling the straits. Which is fine. The fee is small enough that I'm not opposed to paying it given the alternative. I understand why the world is willing to pay. Ok. I get it.
But it's hard for me to view this as a win for us. So I'm probably missing something? (Or at least, I hope I'm missing something.)