Iran

[Pergamos]

So the conflict with Iran keeps being announced as over, and then not really being over.  This most recent surrender at Versailles looks the most like a real end of any of them for a while, but I am seeing a lot of folks saying it isn't going to actually end anything.

Anyone want to weigh in?  Cain maybe?

I'm personally very frustrated by Schumer saying he will keep reparations from being authorized by congress if he can.  I do think that money should be coming directly from Donald Trump's funds, rather than the government, but we have absolutely, as a country, acted in awful ways that need to be compensated for.  Iran deserves reparations for the damage we have done.  Having a reconstruction fund will encourage more interaction between our countries, in ways that will create more opportunities to directly support Iranian people and their own, on the ground, struggles for freedom.  It's also a big fat pork barrel, which isn't a great thing, but should be motivating Schumer and others to get their fingers in the pork.

[Abbot Mythos]

In simple terms, the Iranian theocracy has won this little war. And, they know they are now stronger than they've ever been. And so, it's now just a matter of them extracting the reparations they want from us, and they also know time is on their side.

The POSOTUS believed he had the military capability to force a regime change in Iran simply by ordering a short bombing campaign. But, the result of his failed bombing campaign is that the Iranian theocracy now has the capability to severely weaken the Turd Reich. And, although the Iranian theocracy can not actually destroy the Turd Reich outright, they can easily weaken it by occasionally restricting the flow of oil through the Straits of Hormuz.

Therefore, I see no reason for the Iranian theocracy to come to any kind of a final agreement with the Turd Reich prior to the U.S. Midterm elections.

[Faust]

The current phase of the deal is verifying it:
The condition is Isreal immediately cease all attacks on Lebanon, they didnt so the straight was closed again, this is a test, they want the US to intervene and reign in Isreal, probably permanently.

This is far more damaging to the US then the 300 billion rebuild funds, as it will force the US to undermine its ally there, even if its in their best interests as well as everyone else

[Faust]

Its times like these I really miss Cain's opinion

[Pergamos]

Its times like these I really miss Cain's opinion

Does he not come around any more?

[Faust]

No one comes around here much but I've missed his analysis of complex situations which some how made the world less scary and more understandable

[chaotic neutral observer]

The US signing an MOU that requires the cooperation of a third party was a hilarious blunder.  Iran has set itself up with a Xanatos gambit.  I believe they knew what they were doing; Lebanon is mentioned three times in the first term of the MOU.  That's not concise diplomatic language, that's hammering the point across.

Iran likely went into this expecting Israel wouldn't cooperate.  But, what are the options?

If the US somehow, magically, gets Israel to stand down voluntarily, that's still a win for Iran--and it drives a wedge between the US and Israel.  This war appears to have popular support in Israel, even if Netanyahu doesn't.  The MOU being adhered to would leave Iran in a pretty strong position.

If Israel doesn't stand down voluntarily, then either:

The US attempts to force Israel to comply, by cutting off their weapons supplies, applying sanctions, or whatever other pressure they can bring to bear.  A weakened Israel would be a big win for Iran.  It's possible they want this even more than the terms of the MOU--after all, that $300 billion reconstruction fund sounds nice, but nobody expects Trump to hold up his side of any deal in the long-term.

The US doesn't force Israel to comply, and the MOU falls through.  Now, Iran has justification (on paper) for keeping the strait closed.  Not a best case for them, but they're still holding the cards.  I've heard it claimed that oil reserves will hit a wall in about four weeks, at which point things will get very bad, very quickly.  I guess if Cain was around, he might know if that is accurate.


I think Iran can't back down, and Israel won't, which means whatever happens, will be a result of US action. The US has already lost, but the ultimate form of that loss is unclear.  Will they back out entirely, without an agreement, and leave the rest of the world to clean up their mess?  Will they cut off Israel?  Will they attempt a ground invasion of Iran?  Will they come up with something even stupider than the above?

[Pergamos]

The US signing an MOU that requires the cooperation of a third party was a hilarious blunder.  Iran has set itself up with a Xanatos gambit.  I believe they knew what they were doing; Lebanon is mentioned three times in the first term of the MOU.  That's not concise diplomatic language, that's hammering the point across.

Iran likely went into this expecting Israel wouldn't cooperate.  But, what are the options?

If the US somehow, magically, gets Israel to stand down voluntarily, that's still a win for Iran--and it drives a wedge between the US and Israel.  This war appears to have popular support in Israel, even if Netanyahu doesn't.  The MOU being adhered to would leave Iran in a pretty strong position.

If Israel doesn't stand down voluntarily, then either:

The US attempts to force Israel to comply, by cutting off their weapons supplies, applying sanctions, or whatever other pressure they can bring to bear.  A weakened Israel would be a big win for Iran.  It's possible they want this even more than the terms of the MOU--after all, that $300 billion reconstruction fund sounds nice, but nobody expects Trump to hold up his side of any deal in the long-term.

The US doesn't force Israel to comply, and the MOU falls through.  Now, Iran has justification (on paper) for keeping the strait closed.  Not a best case for them, but they're still holding the cards.  I've heard it claimed that oil reserves will hit a wall in about four weeks, at which point things will get very bad, very quickly.  I guess if Cain was around, he might know if that is accurate.


I think Iran can't back down, and Israel won't, which means whatever happens, will be a result of US action. The US has already lost, but the ultimate form of that loss is unclear.  Will they back out entirely, without an agreement, and leave the rest of the world to clean up their mess?  Will they cut off Israel?  Will they attempt a ground invasion of Iran?  Will they come up with something even stupider than the above?

I don't think blunder is quite the right word.  I think a cessation of hostilities by Israel has always been a very important thing to Iran, I don't think there would have been any progress if that had been left out.  Now we get to see if the US actually does anything to reign Israel in.

[chaotic neutral observer]

I don't think blunder is quite the right word.  I think a cessation of hostilities by Israel has always been a very important thing to Iran, I don't think there would have been any progress if that had been left out.  Now we get to see if the US actually does anything to reign Israel in.

The MOU certainly counts as progress as far as Iran is concerned, and yeah, it's very doubtful they would accept any agreement that didn't result in an actual ceasefire in Lebanon.

But, has the MOU improved the US's position?  Seems like the situation on the ground hasn't changed, except the US is now committed to doing something about Israel.

I suppose it's arguable that reigning in Israel was always going to be the US's problem, MOU or no, but now it's in writing.  If it wasn't a full-on blunder, it at least doesn't seem like the smartest move, diplomatically.