Just from that little passage it seems Iran is correct. If they are designated the task of arranging then they decide where and how the tables are set, surely.
3 Likes
Kind of seems a flawed concept believing that you can negotiate with Iran in the first place.
1 Like
Obama managed it.
7 Likes
Why both deals (US / Iran , Lebanon /Israel) are chimeras , in total contradiction of each other , and why their chances of success are somewhere approaching zero.
1 Like
He did. Can’t argue with you there at all.
3 Likes
Trump hurriedly signed a deal to get out of the mess he, and Netanyahu created. Now he thinks Iran got some ‘unfair’ advantage and want to nullify that by the only means he knows.
2 Likes
I think you are being utterly unfair to Iran.
If Iran kills a hundred civilians in one of these punitive war crimes, they will lie and claim that it was not their missile; and we are now at a point where a lot of people will sadly believe them
https://x.com/Telegraph/status/2071277603453902926
They did get an unfair advantage. But that is the fault of Trump and a symptom of US political weakness, and not at all the fault of Iran.
Right now we have a useless ceasefire which Iran through it’s revolutionary guards, breaks by shooting at ships (a rather massiver breach, that must be punished with military means, given the lack of a peace deal), forcing the US to bomb them in return.
Essentially, every single time Iran shoots at a ship, there must be proportional military retaliation of some kind. It is logically the only way to make them stop those cynical games. The fact that Iran thinks, and right now feels, that it has the freedom to just bombard civilian ships is absolutely insane. And sure, it’s the fault of Trump and Netanyahu, obviously for starting this. That doesn’t mean that it can ever go unpunished unless one wants Iran to actually have that freedom and such power (I sure as hell do not, and these ships are civilian and critical for the world economy, I remind you all).
It is a very cynical attempt by the IRGC of normalising Iranian military intervention in the Hormuz Strait. That is kind of obvious and cannot be allowed to stand. Here the US clearly has a responsiblity to deny them when Iran attacks international shipping, given the US was stupid enough to start this absurdity in the first place, they don’t get to ignore this. You break it, you f-ing have the moral responsibility to fix it.
If it’s hard to fix, too bad, shouldn’t have made such a stupid decision to start this then…
3 Likes
How exactly? They, rightly or wrongly want Trump and the US to suffer here and with Israel behaving a bit like a loose canon do you honestly think they’ll trust anything anyone from the US or Israel says?
And that’s before you look at the Iranian regime itself.
1 Like
And if anyone wants to defend Iran attacking civilian shipping at this point in time, then please, inform me of the military necessity. There is none. It is purely a political act of establishing and normalising military control of the Hormuz Strait (which is obviously extremely illegal). Unnacceptable to most of the non-Iranian world to put it mildly, and obviously also a crime.
1 Like
What war crimes.
The concept has been thrown out by all belligerents. Russia, USA, Israel and Iran. Just look at Gaza, do you hear anyone talking about the crimes there?
All the time, just not the right people for it to make a blind bit of difference. It’s sad that we’ve become this way. Or still this way, dealers choice
1 Like
The logic is pretty clear though - they have no real ability to defend their skies, the US and Israel have been able to strike with impunity. Iran’s resistance is premised on denying the flow of traffic through the Straits of Hormuz, their ability to negotiate is equally so. The Americans have been announcing the terms they wish to dictate on a near-daily basis, just two days ago Vance was announcing to the world that the US would simply define the terms to satisfy Trump. Similarly, the US is simply not delivering a cease-fire in Lebanon, and I don’t think anyone can say that Iran has not made that explicit condition throughout the negotiations.
I don’t see that Iran had a lot of choice but to ensure the Strait remained a constraint when trying to negotiate like that - the only thing I find puzzling is why they strike difficult military targets when that capacity is not essential to the strategic balance.
3 Likes
There is no war now. You cannot then just shoot at a ship, and certainly not a civilian one. The reason why there was a lack of global outrage over that previously, was that everyone understood that Iran did this out of necessity.
The necessity, as I wrote above, is no longer there and yes, it is a very serious crime to drone civilian shipping when it is not strictly necessary.
Not so. There is no military necessary now during the cease fire, as I wrote, correctly, above. I will not yield that point since I know that I am 100% correct.
If they want to normalise attacking civilian shipping in the Hormuz Strait (and I know precisely why they are doing it, which doesn’t excuse it) then they must accept being bombed also being normalised. It is not close to acceptable to fire on civilian ships to create economic global damage and to normalise military intervention (and their so called unacceptable ownership of the Strait) , and certainly not so when there is no longer an active war; and the only logical response is then tit for tat.
It was hardly legal during the war, but then it was understandable and “fair enough, it’s what can work for them militarily; so fine given the crimes of the US and Israel”. Not at all now, and must obviously be punished with proportional strikes. Or it will continue . I thought we didn’t want it to continue.
I repeat, this is neutral shipping. If Iran wants to game something with military means now, it must attack American or Israeli targets. It is an absurdity that some people here thinks it is “fine” that Iran targetrs neutral shipping now at this hour, when there is no strict military necessity to do so due to an ongoing war.
https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2071329285026226199
I am more interested in if Iran will continue attacking ships or if the US managed to deter them from doing so. There is no issue with Iran attacking US or Israeli military related targets, but given this is no longer high intensive war, attacking neutral shipping must surely be a condemned by all and invite proportional reprisals.
You mean, like an annual event? One could rather forgive them for thinking it is, and that international law is not really relevant to what the US and Israel have been doing.
No, every time they hit a ship. Proportional retaliation. Are you in favour Iran being able to hit civilian ships ??
If so, how come ? I struggle with understanding how and why you think that is acceptable.
The Iranian attacks on the tankers have done what they were meant to do - forced the US back to the table, because it once again became impossible to obtain insurance coverage for a vessel within 200km of the Straits of Hormuz. I don’t think the Iranians will continue with them systematically, although if I was a transiting captain, I would be sure to stick to the assigned lanes.
3 Likes