US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

1. U.S. commitment to ensure no further acts of aggression

2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz

3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights

4. Lifting of all primary sanctions

5. Lifting of all secondary sanctions

6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran

7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran

8. Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war

9. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region

10. Cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon

Which is much different.

[0] https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb59...

My guess is that they know good and well all the marine landing craft are going to get smoked and are using a false peace to preposition the ground invasion. The ridiculous James Bond scheme they tried to pull off which resulted in us destroying a dozen of our own aircraft and, quite probably a few of our own operators was a Hail Mary inspired by too much television. That failure leaves the administration with quite the dilemma. Surrender and call it a victory, which Israel will not allow. Or repeat the Syracuse Expedition as farse.

It’s a bit depressing to think about, but my hope is that these catastrophic failures will get false allies out of the decision loop and we proceed as a more peaceful and wiser country.

>> 1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again

Hard for the Iranians to take anything the US says seriously. US launched attacks in the middle of the last two negotiations.

I wonder if the US had struck when momentum was high during the popular uprising, it could have being self sustaining, with arms and logistics setup to feed the resistance advance.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/joint-comprehensive-p...

Key Aspects of the JCPOA: Enrichment Limits: Iran capped uranium enrichment at 3.67% for 15 years.

Centrifuge Restrictions: Reduced operating centrifuges to 5,060 IR-1 machines for 10 years.

Stockpile Restrictions: Limited enriched uranium stockpile to 300 kg for 15 years.

Facility Redesign: Redesigned the Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and converted Fordow into a research center.

Monitoring: The IAEA receives enhanced access and monitoring capabilities.

Sanctions Relief: UN, EU, and US nuclear-related sanctions were lifted, restoring Iranian oil sales and banking access.

I do not see that happening.

Frankly if Iran get nothing more than a complete lifting of sanctions this would be a massive climb down for the US.

> Iran would split these fees with Oman

Hard to imagine Trump splitting any fees if he was the leader of Iran.

There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocracy that governs the country currently.

Yes, we have lost sound leadership and stability. Pakistan has brokered the cease-fire in a war started by the US for no good reason. The current US administration was supposed to be non-interventionist.

It is hard to watch the grim spectacle of the US fallen to the point of simultaneously making despicable threats to destroy another country and sending love and best wishes at election-time to Hungary's anti-EU, pro-Russian Orban.

So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades

Not much about gas getting expensive there. I think the recent threats were mostly hyperbole for negotiating purposes.

The largest military the world has ever known was recklessly used towards a foe against decades of internal warning not to go there. People on both sides who didn't ask for this war paid with their lives.

High gas prices might have been a great cause for it ending, but the win for the world is that a escalation towards WWIII was averted, and that even idiotic leaders have learned that the world is a complex system and there's no such thing as a far away war anymore.

That’s not the reason. The US is an occupied government.

Its because you're such a better person than them, wow, incredible. Nobody else knows what war is.

It will be very difficult for Trump to start his war again. He is not thinking about US or even his supporters at this point, but his own legacy, but he is too dumb to understand when Israel and his own staff are lying to him.

That’s why Iran has a very strong position to go to the negotiations. You also killed all the more sensible people in the regime, so there’s only hardliners left. There is nothing to win US or Trump, everything to lose. Iran on the other hand only has to sit tight.

This is how a nation stops being a super power and an empire falls.

If there are other good links, we can add them.

I foresee a possible relaxation of conditions on the strait by Iran while keeping their hand on the lever providing substantial leverage during any actual negotiations. I also note that it seems the US are considering Iranian demands - not the other way around. Even with that, Trumps' toughest negotiations may be with the Israelis.

2. Leadership KIA doesn't matter, IRAN has a decentralized leadership, not a top down one.

3. Military apparatus is intact, majority of missile cities are still operating, over 1M IRGC forces mobilized with many more men willing to sign up.

4. Strait of Hormuz is fully under control of IRAN, "impotent threat of attacking ships" (even though IRAN has much more power) is more than enough to control it.

6. No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever

7. Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf

8. Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded (we'll see what the actual numbers are after CENTCOM releases them finally)

9. Sanctions lifted on Russia, helping them majorly profit. China is still collecting cheap oil.

10. Israel took heavy damage, losing many interceptors as well.

11. Brent 100$+ for 40 days, causing major global issues.

To be fair, US did manage to kill 170 kids on day 1 and bomb bridges, hospitals, universities and civilian areas.. so I guess that's a "win" for you?

Iran has more leverage at the end of this war than it did at the start. Iran has proven that it has the capability to catastrophically disrupt global economy.

* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.

* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.

* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.

* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?

* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.

And really, that expectation is itself stupid. Suppose the US got involved in a hot conventional war with another superpower, and in the first week they killed the President, the vice President, a bunch of Representatives and Senators, and a bunch of senior figures at the Pentagon. Would the US just fold, or would it fill those positions via the line of succession, declare a national emergency, and fight back vigorously? You know the answer is #2, and the idea that other countries might do the same thing should not be a surprise. It appears the US administration has fallen into the trap of believing the shallowest version of its own propaganda about other countries, and assuming that Iran was just like Iraq under Saddam Hussein but with slightly different outfits.

The Iranian strategy is basically Mohammed Ali's Rope-a-dope: absorb punishment administered at exhausting cost (very expensive munitions with limited stocks) while spending relatively little of their own (dirt cheap drones with small payloads but effective targeting, continually degrading the aggressor's radar visibility and military infrastructure). The one limited ground incursion so far (ostensibly to rescue an airman, but almost certainly a cover for something else) resulted in the loss of multiple heavy transport aircraft, helicopters, and drones at a cost of hundred$ of million$.

Their military capabilities are diminished in the short term, but if their ability to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz holds then that's a massive win for Iran in the medium/long term. A mere $2M per ship represents 10% of Iran's GDP. They would become the only country in the world to impose a toll on international waters, and they would have established a defensive deterrent almost as effective as having a nuclear bomb.

They took on the most powerful military ever seen and lived to tell the tale. It's hard to spin that as a loss for Iran.

The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils. And by those standards they seem to be succeeding.

So now we have a pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead with no tangible benefit to anybody, except of course those cronies of the administration doing insider trading.

A nation can swarm an aircraft carrier with a 1000 drones, each costing about 40k USD. Only a few are needed to seriously damage the carrier. Not to mention ballistic missiles.

In this scenario, does a US massive, slow moving aircraft carrier possibly carrying hundreds of billions of assets really work ? Can the US meaningfully project power with these?

In this scenario, who holds more power or leverage ?

An aircraft carrier can project power within 500 miles. The idea is to use a few of these to knock out the air power of the opposing nation, basically airfields, missile stockpiles, factories, power infra, etc. And then drop in a ground invasion force.

Does this now work? I dont think so. 10 drones can be launched from the back of a truck.

How are they still firing missiles and downing aircraft?

All the ships stuck in the Gulf probably didn't consider the threat impotent.

On the other side: what more can the US do? Target civilian infrastructure? There is no appetite for getting stuck with boots on the ground, and everyone (including Iran) knows this.

You're probably right that it won't a win for anyone. If some of the points includes removing sanctions from Iran, it might be a huge win -- for Iran, or at-least it's population.

It not that impotent. Attacking civilan targets in the age of drones is not that hard - a small motor boat with explosives or a shahed style drone is all you need. And to keep the strait closed they don't need to attack all ships. Even 0.1% probability of an attack (maybe even 0.01%) is enough to halt the traffic. And they don't need to sink the ship - a fire on board is enough to create an unacceptable security risk for tankers and LNG carriers.

It was a while since Houthis attacked any ships and yet traffic via Suez is still 60% down from what is was befor attacks started in 2023. Because the risk of an attack is not zero.

That's why it is crippling the entire world's economy and demanding concessions bigger than the status quo ante bellum, with the US powerless to stop it. Because it's no threat.

You've been paying attention to what's happened over the last few weeks and you qualify that threat as impotent? That impotent threat basically brought the rest of the world to it's knees.

Iran suffered a lot of losses in terms of people and widescale destruction of infrastructure.

But the US lost too, we come out of this war looking much weaker and more chaotic than we did going in, not to mention the amount of money we poured into it while accomplishing nothing (nothing we destroyed in Iran was a threat to us until we bombed them in the first place).

Seeing diehard MAGAs in these comment threads is always so amusing. Clearly Agent Orange didn't think the threat was impotent if he crawled on his knees to negotiation table hastened by dire predictions of impending economic collapse but you somehow think it was "impotent" ? Astonishing :)

the same thing the media keeps asking trump: what do these things matter?

there's a meaningful change to iran's negotiating position basically forever into the future: the US cannot impose sanctions without also banning states from using the strait, and its clear what states will choose between the two. I still dont think they care about nukes, but now they can keep enriching as much uranium as they want to 60% and they can use that as a negotiation chip for something else.

the US and israel are not nearly the threats they were a month ago, not just iran has paid the costs of war

the real problem for iran is that now they actually have to deliver good stuff for their citizens - for all the western bluster, its still a democracy, and they do have to hydrate their population

According to whom? POTUS claimed to have done this back in June 2025.

They did everything they could in this war, didn't they, and apparently it didn't do too too much? (other than the economic damage of closing the strait, which seems to be what worked). But I think they could probably keep doing everything they've been doing still? (including controlling the strait).

Painting this as a victory for Iran would be a stretch. But they definitely did not lose either.

This is something that keeps on happening to the US. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are all conflicts where the US won militarily and then had to withdraw anyway. Vietnam is still ruled by the communists, Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban once more, and the regime in Iraq is nominally Iran supported and not exactly on the best of terms with the US either. This conflict seems to be a repeat of past mistakes. The US went in, bombed the shit out of stuff for a few weeks and only then steps back to literally think "Now what?!". It could have done that a few months ago and saved us all the trouble of having to deal with this BS.

Painting this as a US victory is also quite a stretch. Iran never really posed a credible military threat beyond its borders. Nor did Afghanistan or Iraq. I think China might consider this a win though. And they definitely pose a non trivial military threat. Some historians might end up arguing the US took some long term strategic hits here for essentially very little meaningful gains. And we'll see in November how Republicans fare on the economic aftermath of what you might describe as a gigantic cluster f** at this point.

2) Iran agrees to open the strait if they're not attacked.

What happened here is they caved under Trump's threat but they're going to make it look like they're opening the strait on their terms, while Trump will make it look like they're opening the strait on his terms (which actually makes more sense, because if they didn't open the strait we'd have probably started bombing them)

And Iran's military hasn't been destroyed, they still control the strait. How do you explain that if they don't have a military?

Win some lose some.

US gas was affordable, keeping not only passenger vehicle fuel low, but farming costs and groceries/ transporting goods in US.

Trump then claims Iran is dangerous and building nukes and is a threat, despite IAEA reports to the contrary.

At Geneva, Iran offers to hand over all their uranium. Trump refuses.

Hours later trump starts bombing Iran.

Iran closes the strait to choke US economy.

US fuel costs skyrocket affecting CPI basket.

Trump demands they open the strait, and makes threat if they don’t.

Iran now says “okay, we will open it if u stop bombing us but now we will charge 2million fee for vessels passage”.

Now US fuel remains high, an additional fee is in place, and Iran keeps their uranium.

No regime change. No uranium shift. Just a major inflation spike to the US (and global) economies. Oh, and Iran gains full control of the strait.

Art of the deal

That's the thing, winning depends on your goals.

Iran's goal was to survive as a country, and the autocratic theocracy that rules it to stay in charge. Not only it managed that so far, but it now effectively controls the flow of all exports going through the gulf. It is an actual victory.

US' goals were unclear. A lot was said. Regime change? Stop Iran's nuclear program? Stop its support to proxies in the region? Take Kharg Island? None of that was done. It was a deafeat.

Israel's goal is murder. It murdered a lot of people during this war. Double points for murdering children. I think Israel can also claim victory here.

> Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.

You can figure out the goal. What you can't figure out is a goal that actually had a snowball's chance in an oil fire of being achieved.

Again, not a fan of the situation and while I think it is the US's loss I do not really see how it is a win for Iran.

So I think there will be another leader elected soon.

Note that it is also a win for Israel, so far. They are still invading Lebanon with no plans to stop.

And a clear loss for the US who literally got nothing from that whole thing and triggered a massive global crisis

> 4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if anyone messes with them they’ll close the straight. Then gas prices go up. Then your own domestic pop gets pissed. Then your chances of re-election drop.

Everyone knew from the beginning that closing the strait was something Iran would do. But it is current US government that is either inept or too smart for their own good and thought with US producing surplus oil for domestic use, it will not impact them. They didn't care for the consequences and it came back to bite them.

Also, wasn't it that even if the war was stop/ceasefire oil prices will take a long time to recover? If that is true the domestic pop getting pissed might be true even with this ceasefire and it will hurt the current government in their upcoming elections.

> 3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.

More like galvanized people against a common enemy. Regime is going to come down hard on the protestors than ever before and some might find it easier to blame the power which claimed to deliver the regime change. Then Americans will talk about how Iranians hate their way of life and the attack was justified.

Not a good image for the US around the world, including its (former?) allies, I guess.

More like: Reminded the anti regime population that US has no interest to help them and will happily kill all Iranians and proudly destroy all of civil infrastructure.

> 5. Destabilised the whole region costing the ME lots and lots of money.

In this case, the destabilization is firmly the fault of USA and Israel.

This ceasefire will defuse the global economy’s tensions. That’s its sole purpose.

It’s unlikely they’ll find enough common ground for a lasting agreement.

It's absolutely possible for both sides in a major conflict to lose, and they've managed to do so in this case.

Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, pay salaries, run a business, have running water, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food, people will starve; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots bigger than the ones seen in January.

The Iranian government would have no ability to coordinate a response, and Iran would collapse within a week. The country would devolve into chaos, into paramilitary factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.

The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war through this outcome.

Formidable?

Hundreds of regime leadership is gone. Massive destruction of infrastructure. Bombed all their neighbors who weren’t even at war with them. Pushed those same neighbors into closer partnership with Israel and the US.

Now the regime is severely weakened.

Failure all around.

But no doubt Trump and his people will tell the world what an amazing success the whole thing was, and how they exceeded all their goals, whatever those goals might have been.

Heavy weight boxing a teen it should have brained in round 1.

Teen lands a few punches back is embarrassing.

Teen slapping heavy weights protectorates more embarrassing.

Teen surviving week 4 is like heavy weight failing to brain teen by round 7.

At this point it's looking like we're going to round 10 TKO, whoever "wins", US loses. People still going to wank over if US wins on TKO because muh K:D ratio or something, but real signal is teen's strategy was to survive hits and ultimately 10000s of heavy weight hits weren't haymaker strong enough to brain a teen. At >2% of GDP of PRC, Iran is basically teen/toddler territory that drew down significant % of US active force and munition stockpiles, so there's also layer of US losing more based on relative effort expended.

Although, it seems like the markets have started to get a sense of this as well and are not so swaying.

I mean, as much as I don’t like the Iranian government, put yourselves in their position. You have the US and Israel literally leveling the equivalent of Balfour or the White House and taking out other government officials in a decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates. The government is then replaced by hardliners who see this attack as existential. You have little to lose at this point, so you go for broke.

Since the US seems unwilling to put boots on the ground, cannot form a coherent reason for any of this and is lead by a man who is unable to accept that he can commit errors, it degrades into a war of attrition and, in the case of Trump, influence peddling since it is clear that Israel and the Saudis would like to see Iran wiped off the map and all Trump cares about is how he can internalize it as yet another reason why he is a victim and entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize.

IMHO, I think there is tremendous pressure to, at the very least restore the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway not subject to Iranian control or tolling, but that’s an after-the-fact thing. I think Trump simply thought it would be an easy win and play well on TV. I suspect what will happen is the US pays a massive indemnity/bribe to Iran, Iran agrees to not contest control of the Strait of Hormuz and the US looks like morons which Trump will internalize as a win that nobody will believe except himself.

This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime.

Yes. People die in war. It’s sad. But most Iranians will say “whether we go to war or not Iranians are being killed” and it’s better to fight for regime change than to just accept the status quo.

Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed? Yes, people die in war, but if there’s a chance for something better than it’s definitely worth it!

Every Iranian I know thinks it’s worth it and they danced in the street when Khamenei was killed.

Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.

* The people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters are now dead.

* The IRGC's military capability is significantly degraded.

* Their nuclear program is likely set back even further. It's hard to get real information here but we should assume that supporting facilities were high on the target list.

That's not nothing. From a strict utilitarian perspective, it's probably "worth it". Which sucks, but I haven't heard a better plan.

Iranians responding with excitement and hope as we bomb the regime.

What people say in either direction is not a reflection of what happens, it's what they want to say, and have some cohort believe happened.

This is for domestic consumption. As will the WH reports be, facing the US domestic audience.

Me either. Now one must ask who gains most from time. Israel, America or Iran.

And sometimes there is crazy. But crazy I can't explain, sorry.

Yet, we all mostly understand we are people and we love each other. But then the big guys come and lead us to war. To get more gas, to get more power, to get influence. Ukraine? They threatened to become independent from Russia (influence). Afghanistan? They threatened to use gold as price factor (influence). Iran? here it might be the third factor I won't explain, but also motivation by money I guess...

Unfortunately I fear that time has long gone.

As long as the population is growing and/or the (fossil) energy is falling there will never be enough to go around.

Parents: stop teaching your children to identify with irrelevant concepts of ethno-nationalism, and instead teach them to be globalist scientists with empathy.

Nationalismus ist eine Kinderkrankheit. Die Masern der Menschheit. ("Nationalism is an infantile disease: the measles of mankind") - Albert Einstein, 1929. Who, incidentally, turned down the presidency of Israel.

"Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our two thousand years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us." - Einstein on Israel, late 1920s.

PLUR

War should never break out. But it does. We had international rules to prevent war, but they're gone. We had international rules to prevent governments deliberately killing innocent people under the guise of war, but they're gone too.

It took two world wars and roughly 80 million killed to create those rules.

You could argue about when they got destroyed. In Ukraine, in Gaza, Iran - but it's clear now that they don't exist any more.

The reality is making statements re. actions associated with committing war-crimes has left the US with no friends... except Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International

You can read who funds this channel.

The strait has been open for weeks for friendly countries' ships that pay Iran $2M per passage through their "toll booth", an unmined route through Iranian territorial waters.

This ceasefire appears legitimize that situation. If it holds, Iran is about to make huge amounts of money on top of sanctions relief.

The threat why boats do not cross are Iranian missiles / drones striking ships attempting to pass thru, without paying a protection fee. It's basically a terrorism protection fee.

Another reason it won't work -- by Iran's logic, every nation adjacent to a strait of water can levy a toll on ships that pass through.

Why doesn't the UK charge tolls on ships that pass through the English channel, and bomb them if they don't pay up?

The same logic applies to the Strait of Gibraltar (Spain, UK, Morocco) and the Strait of Malacca (Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia).

One could argue that this is a doing-something as opposed to a saying-something, and thus more substantive. Or perhaps people want some good news to believe in? I don't know - one can make up lots of just-so stories about these things (see paragraph 1).

Listening to what he has to say is nearly worthless. Better to react to his actions.

Market manipulation and the media largely forgetting about a certain set of files that reference many people in powerful positions.

Missiles are still flying so it’s hard to say who has really agreed to what.

I’ve heard rumors that Iran has agreed to dilute its highly enriched uranium so maybe the US could count that as a win. Given they’ve demonstrated sufficient conventional deterrence they may feel that they don’t need the nukes, especially if they can get some sort of Chinese backed security guarantee. But that might be a trial balloon or wishful thinking.

As far as the geopolitical consequences of all this, i think its still pretty unclear where the chips will fall, but whether a win or a loss for usa, i think the consequences of this war will be significant.

that's the price of "freedom".

both sides get to save face - Trump says they won, his cronies n himself got rich. Iran gets a better deal than before. Israel gets rid of US bases in the Middle East via Iran.

of course the poor and downtrodden get shifted - that never changes.

"What Causes Wars: An Introduction to Crisis Bargaining Theory", by William Spaniel, PHD and professor, specializing in game-theory and specifically crisis bargaining theory: https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA

The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn't.

It's been clear for weeks now that the US has lost this war. The only question was how long it would take Trump to disengage and what the trigger would be.

And the answers appear to be "two more weeks" and "when one plausibly genocidal gaffe went too far and fractured his domestic coalition".

[1] Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.