Like i said, that is what the administration (Witkoff) communicated. You can believe it or not, dispute it all you want, but the only opinion of any importance here is if they (either Iran, the administration, and frankly also Israel) believed it. In that case, it would be a dangerous thing for the US and Israel to ignore. Some would suggest impossible to ignore.

In my opinion if it’s not true and Iran communicated it…that would be a huge miscalculation by Iran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACqWRsde4Ys

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5751330-witkoff-ira...

The administration stated many times their nuclear stockpiles were already obliterated.

Ok…but that is irrelevant to my point.

How could they be 11 days away when we for sure obliterated it many months ago? It seems pretty central to the overall point.

Are you suggesting there can be no difference between public rhetoric, the truth, and what might be said behind the closed doors of a diplomatic negotiation between adversaries? Especially with Trump?

I'm pointing out you can't trust anything these people say. They were either lying before, they're lying now, or both.

Which, again, has zero to do with my initial post. Again, the point was that we cant assume a blockade without the initial military operation would have been successful. And it’s a moot point anyway because only one of those three parties needed to believe that Iran was that close to having a nuclear device for a military operation to have taken place. Your opinion (or anyone else’s) of the trustworthiness of the Trump administration has zero bearing on whether or not they could or would launch a military operation. They obviously did.

But you're basing your information off of the things people who are known to lie to you are saying. You're building your house of logic on quicksand.

I'm arguing you can't trust what they say about what was said at these meetings, because they've shown they can't be trusted to tell the truth at any time. Bessent says they said that, but you can't trust him. He's a liar. This is the problem when you have an administration that lies all the time even about little things. You can't even begin to actually trust the big things.

I get it, you don't trust them. I am skeptical of the motives of all governments regardless of who sits in power. Frankly, none are truly benevolent or honest as far as I am concerned.

But that is a whole separate topic from speaking to the hypothetical “we should have tried a blockade first”. Whether you believe the justification or not there is a honesty to the timing, immediacy, and level of violence of the action here. When you couple that with some indisputable facts here—we know that for nearly five decades Iran has advocated genocide on Israel and the US as a matter of their state policy. We know that they have repeatedly acted when they could to this end. We know they were seeking nuclear weapons. We know that active diplomacy was going on and then it turned on a dime suddenly to military action.

It seems to me that the level of military violence inflicted on Iran with such a short switch from diplomatic talks was consistent with the belief by someone that they were danger close to having a nuclear weapon. You can be dishonest and corrupt, but still see and act on immediate threats.

So, I will go out of my way to guess none of the mentioned parties believed it. Not Israel, not Iran and not even administration.

Also, per reports, it was looking like they will have a deal and Iran was making concessions. In both cases, they got bombed as they were making them

Witkoff is an untrustworthy idiot, negotiator unable to make deals.

But what evidence do you have that none believed it? Sounds more like a subjective opinion rather than an objective one.

While I am not big on trust either, I am perplexed why “successful” negotiations would all of a sudden turn on a dime into a regional military event without a major catalyst— especially this close to midterms. This action was not politically helpful to Trump, was risky with his base, yet he did it anyway.

> I am perplexed why “successful” negotiations would all of a sudden turn on a dime into a regional military event without a major catalyst

It can make a lot of sense when you understand the people involved are deeply incompetent, aggressively overconfident, and are surrounded by religious extremists saying this needs to be done for Jesus to come back.

I mean, after all, we bombed them months ago and nothing happened. We just nabbed another head of state with zero issues. Nothing bad is going to happen, we've got this! We'll just breeze in and crush them in a few days. Which we did, mission success, that's why we're all finished already, right?

> It can make a lot of sense when you understand the people involved are deeply incompetent, aggressively overconfident, and are surrounded by religious extremists saying this needs to be done for Jesus to come back.

It was literally only until the last 5 words that I realized you were not talking about Iran. Funny how you ignore their part in all this.

However, I do want to take issue with the idea of “deeply incompetent”. That doesn't fit. They are either extremely competent at implementing their political agenda, or extremely lucky. Additionally this whole situation is contrary to the Trump administration’s normal playbook. If anything is consistent about Trump is that he panders to his base. This was the exact opposite. Why the change?

Thats the problem with assuming that this is Trump business as usual, its not…which is why I feel that there is a catalyst to go off their normal playbook.

> They are either extremely competent at implementing their political agenda, or extremely lucky

Or extremely corrupt and down to take hundreds of millions (billions?) by foreign puppet masters who help them win elections. Maybe competent at exerting their will over people with less power than them and playing up people's hatreds for influence, but other than that I don't really see competence.

How does Witkoff have so much money again? Oh that's right, he's bought and paid for by Qataris.

Under what credentials was Witkoff selected for his role? Clearly he's someone with a deep history of geopolitics right? Maybe some war tactician? Someone with history studying how non-proliferation treaties work, or really any kind of understanding about how uranium enrichment works? If not any of that does he at least speak the language or understand the cultures of the Iranians? Oh that's right, he's just buddy-buddy with the President through running in the same real-estate circles. Sure seems like the competent choice for leading such negotiations.

Even Trump's selection of who to lead negotiations is an obvious example of the extreme incompetence and flagrant corruption of which this whole thing has been executed.

> If anything is consistent about Trump is that he panders to his base

Just like how he's released the Epstein files as promised or built the wall and had Mexico pay for it right? He does whatever he wants and his base just retcons and goes with it.

If you’re just gonna regurgitate all the same overused critiques that have been said about literally every Trump administration member and their suitability for their jobs since his first term we can just end this here. I prefer serious critical thinking in discussions, not having to read tired talking points that I have seen a thousand times on here and elsewhere.

I’m not a Trump supporter but I am exhausted watching other people who don’t support him provide such lazy arguments.

Imagine having such extreme and blatant in your face corruption taking place and yet people see it as just blasé talking points not worth discussing.

It's useful continuing to point out the extreme corruption taking place right in front of us, especially when the topic is if they're competent or not. You're saying they're clearly competent, and yet the people involved hold zero credentials to do the job they're there for.

What about any of this has shown competence to you?

> such lazy arguments.

It's sad to see so many fellow citizens just not care about the extreme corruption and just excuse it. Wake up.

The arguments only seem lazy because they're obvious truths. There's nothing left to debate, they just are. The only question is, do you care about the extreme corruption leading to this absolute shitshow or do you just continue to excuse it?

Witkoff and Kushner are by far extremely poor choices to choose if you want competent people in there. There are probably thousands of people far more qualified to be there. Why do you think they were chosen, if not corruption and nepotism?

> overused critiques that have been said about literally every Trump administration member

They are and were true about literally every Trump administration member. Trump does not tolerate competent people well, he requires loyalty and puts people through loyalty tests. Trump also prefers corrupt people - they are like him and understand each other. All of that appeals to sizable portion of electorate. They also enjoy watching the cruelty, as a bonus.

Trump is good at bullying. You do not need to be competent negotiator or understand nuclear issues to be rich. Especially in an environment Witkoff and Kushner are from - all you need there is bullying and money. (But also, Trump inherited his money and proceeded to fail his business ventures literally whole his life.).

> But what evidence do you have that none believed it? Sounds more like a subjective opinion rather than an objective one.

Both their subsequent behavior and their other statements.

> I am perplexed why “successful” negotiations would all of a sudden turn on a dime into a regional military event without a major catalyst

America and Israel wanted that war regardless of outcome of the negotiations. Iranians making concessions was going against actual goals of these two countries. Israel is actively sabotaging ceasefires and trying to enlarge their territory. American administration simply finds wars cool.

Also, by all reports, Witkoff and Kushner dont know much about nuclear. They are, basically, incompetent. They did not understood the things being give up. And before you call that false accusation, Russia complained about them not understanding their position too - and that is despite Witkoff and Kushner being on Russia side. They are able to bully their way to get some stuff they want - that works with some targets (Venezuela) and did not worked here nor in Ukraine.

> especially this close to midterms. This action was not politically helpful to Trump, was risky with his base, yet he did it anyway.

Majority of republicans support this war. And no one else matter to Trump. Hegseth, Trump and company were proud of starting this war. In their minds, it made them feel and look powerful, manly and strong. Republicans also think it makes them strong and manly.

Trump already made Venezuela into vassal dictatorship, threatened Greenland, threatened Canada, plans to attack Cuba is bombing fisherman boats and murdering sailors, builds concentration camps, supports Russian invasion, supported Orban ... it is all perfectly consistent.

Edit: And if you read or listen conservative analysists from defense background, their idea of ceasefire was "oh, well, we will continue bombing every few months". The war and bombing as something normal other countries are just assumed to accept as just a no big deal thing America does is fairly common ideology among them.