[flagged]
You seem to have a much more imperative and concise view than either Trump or Hegseth, are you secretly the one in charge of everything?
I loathe Iran regime, but not much of that is going to happen.
The first response would be:
"We stop threatening Israel when they stop taking Palestinian lands and killing them"
"The US moves all troops out of the Middle East"
"Stops trying to overthrow our government"
"Stops sanctioning us"
"Stops and interfering in our domestic affairs"
"Returns $100B dollars stolen / frozen since 1979"
And that would literally put that truly bad regime on almost the moral high ground.
The impossible imperative that you've written I think helps us understand the 'Chock A Block' log-jam of the situation, and why this is so thorny.
The most plausible outcome is nothing.
The second most plausible outcome is descent into massive factional civil war.
Maybe somewhere down the line, there is a 'Shah Installed by the US' and then I'm afraid to tell you that we 'Already Did That' and look how it turned out.
There are no decisive answers and no decisive options on the table.
?? What is a 'quick win' ??
Serious question.
- Ayatollah dead, next Ayatollah?
- 10 years of civil war?
- Installation of US-backed Shah, with no real power base, which will lead to ongoing insurrection, which is what led to ... Islamic Revolution ... because we already tried that?
- Faux acquiescence at the negotiating table ... while they dig their HQs further under ground?
What else?
A quick win is possible, but one of the most narrow scenarios.
It looks at the moment like everyone is losing, some worse than others.
An Iranian Delcy Rodriguez. Someone who waives a white flag, accepts Trump's terms and then gets left alone for the most part.
Even if it's a bluff to buy time to rebuild, I'm not seeing the strategic rationale for refusing to negotiate. (I do see Iran's leaders being internally constrained to keep fighting. We saw a similar dynamic in Japan during WWII.)
My understanding is that they were actively negotiating, or at least they thought they were. In the middle of the dialogue the lights went out.
Essentially, Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation. The outcome was foreordained.
The only parties I’ve seen say this are Iran and Oman. Practically every other source, including non-English, concedes taking three weeks to come close to hashing out a framework isn’t serious.
> Trump was not authorized by Netanyahu to win that negotiation
This is nonsense. Netanyahu was pushing Trump. But if the Tehran team had capitulated, Trump would have taken the win. Hell, the capitalization could have been bullshit.
> outcome was foreordained
Of course it wasn’t. Ford wasn’t scrambled until weeks ago.
If you can read translated European, Indian, Chinese and Arab reporting on this, I’d strongly suggest it. The English-language stuff has inherited America’s obsession with Israel. That’s obviously germane here. But it isn’t as controlling as we like to make it seem.
... and still carry water for Trump?
Honest question, posed with all possible respect to a longtime HN user whom I am certain isn't a bot, an idiot, or a shill. Does Trump sound, to you, like a guy with a plan of his own, who can be trusted to execute that plan? Like someone who deserves the benefit of the doubt?
We're told that "Biden gave everything to Ukraine and didn't bother to replace it," but "Fortunately, I rebuilt the military in my first term," and now we have a "virtually unlimited supply, stocked and ready to WIN BIG!!!"
Where do you, personally, draw the line? What could he say to convince you that he isn't acting in our country's interests, or even his own?
I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m carrying water for the evidence.
Iran was not negotiating in good faith regarding giving up their nuclear program. Israel was encouraging but not boxing in American decision making. Witkoff and Kushner were (a) genuinely trying to strike a deal and (b) against kinetics when they started. These are each supported by the preponderance of evidence, far more than their inverses.
> Where do you, personally, draw the line?
Where the evidence does. If that winds up being pro- or anti- whatever party, I’ll look at that second. Facts aren’t partisan.
Unfortunately I don't feel that I have access to the "evidence" you're referring to.
Everything I know about the attacks on Iran, I learned from people who lie a lot. That's pretty much all they do. They begin lying shortly after they wake up in the morning but before they get out of bed, and then they don't stop lying until they enter the alpha state that night. After that they probably lie in their dreams, but to be fair I guess I don't have evidence of that either.
Facts aren’t partisan.
Are your non-partisan facts more like Kellyanne Conway's "alternative facts," or the kind that are actually true?
No one can.
If one is trying to negotiate while maintaining a theocracy, then Trump won't listen, but ending the theocracy is one of the listed points, so it's logically consistent.
I mean, the Germans and Japanese and Iraqis probably couldn’t have trusted the U.S. either. They still surrendered because it was better than fighting a futile war.
Same here. Iran’s security chief (and, I’m assuming, de facto leader) messaging he’s ready to concede on those points certainly doesn’t put him in a worse position than he is now.
As for Iran, about all they could have done, in retrospect, was to actually develop nuclear weapons rather than just hemming and hawing and bluffing and stalling for 40+ years. It's amazing that the country that invented chess could blunder that badly.
There were so many mis-steps.
Iran could have rejected autarky. Constrained the IRGC’s corruption. Not funded proxies that pissed off every one of their neighbors (except for, maybe, Turkmenistan).
Not supported Hamas when they decided to deputize a lobotomy ward. Not drip fed Hezbollah’s rockets into Israeli air defenses. Not fired at Israel in a symbolic move in 2024. Not half assed their retaliation in 2025. Not assumed, with full faith, Trump was bluffing and thus not (a) seriously negotiate in Geneva nor (b) bother scattering their navy and air force in anticipation of strikes.
I’d actually argue an indigenous nuke was a strategic blunder for Iran. It cost them their economy and moral standing. Maybe pursuing Russia’s nuclear umbrella would have been a smarter move.