r/geopolitics • u/Kooky_Strategy_9664 • 1d ago
News Iran stops negotiations with U.S., vows to 'completely' block Strait of Hormuz: State media
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/01/iran-us-negotiations-strait-of-hormuz.html104
u/Kooky_Strategy_9664 1d ago
SS: Iranian negotiators will stop exchanging messages with the U.S. through intermediaries, and Tehran will move to fully close the Strait of Hormuz, in retaliation for ongoing ceasefire violations, Iran’s state-affiliated news outlet Tasnim said Monday
14
u/Barking__Pumpkin 1d ago
Do you believe this is an attempt to clean the slate for a reset? Difficult to determine when the U.S. last negotiated in good faith with Iran.
124
u/Pseudanonymius 1d ago
It was a matter of time until Iran stopped playing Trump's game. They released this news right as the market was opening, within 5 minutes. That's not an accident. They know Israel is continuing their war against Lebanon, and they know they have leverage. Let the US try to weasel itself out of this.
67
u/LoggerInns 1d ago
This is the 100th time that Tasnim has reported that negotiations are “suspended”, “will not happen”, “are not taking place” and they almost always come out on Sunday night/Monday morning US market opening time. You can literally see all the times this same or similar headline has been posted here. It’s no different than Trump saying a deal is near. Iran benefits from higher oil prices as it puts domestic pressure on Trump and vice versa. Everything else you said is just propaganda.
73
u/Pseudanonymius 1d ago
If one party keeps saying there are no negotiations happening and the other party keeps saying they're very close to a deal, and that repeats for 2 months, than at least one of the parties was speaking the truth.
19
u/Nightron 1d ago
I think both sides™ are lying and exaggerating in order to control the narrative, to put pressure on the opposing party and to calm internal power struggles. So it's difficult to trust statements of either side and hard to asses whether negotiations behind closed doors are in good faith.
The fact that both Iran and the US keep contradictig their own statements repeatedly, while also acknowledging that some kind of talk's are happening, makes me believe there is more going on than either side is admitting publicly. Probably a lot of colliding interests and power struggles involving Israel, the GCC states and also inside Iran and the IRGC itself.
At least they have demonstrated a common interest in the ceasefire and a pause to dynamic military escalation. But I fear it's for selfish reasons only and not necessarily a sign that the conflict is cooling down. All parties have had time to rebuild and rearm by now. Fighting could easily intensify again. Even if it doesn't, another couple months of this sort of stalemate over Hormuz would be disastrous for everyone but Israel.
3
u/furyg3 23h ago
There is a quantitative difference between saying that something is almost done for two months OR something is nowhere near done for two months.
7
u/-Sliced- 23h ago
It's just reflecting the internal politics in both countries. Both sides are trying to pander internally that they are in control. I think that all the discussion about who is right is misguided - it's obvious that they are negotiating. Even the stock market agrees. People don't take the Iranian media announcements seriously anymore.
0
u/Girafferage 18h ago
To be honest I dont think Iran is pandering much internally. They actively have control, albeit by force if needed. The amount of pandering they need to do is extremely limited comparatively.
4
u/-Sliced- 18h ago
As we saw yesterday with the resignation of the Iranian president, they have their own internal disagreements. Both the US and Iran have leverage.
0
u/Girafferage 17h ago
That just means that the IRGC now has more control, not less.
6
u/-Sliced- 17h ago
IRGC always had control over the president. The resignation indicates an escalation that required them to exert that control.
→ More replies (0)1
u/fabmeyer 9h ago
Actually I think they are the same. Something is almost like x and something is almost not like x?
7
-1
u/LoggerInns 1d ago
Except Tasnim, Aragchi and even the IRGC has said negotiations are continuing just hours after saying they weren’t. This is the same as when Trump says a “deal is close” but then says “he’s going to take his time”. That’s how these things happen, negotiations are never fast. As I said, anything else is just propaganda.
31
u/Pseudanonymius 1d ago
I think that's missing the trees for the forest. Trump doesn't want any deal the current situation warrants him getting. He wants to be able to pretend he's coming out of this as a winner, while he fundamentally lost this war. He's not going to get what he wants. He's used to people just caving eventually and settling because they just don't wanna deal with his crap anymore. Except Iran has no incentive to do that. Their current position is so much better than what they had before, and also so much better than a deal which requires them to give up all their nuclear material and control of the strait. Which part of them declaring those facts, in different words (what is unacceptable and stuff like that) is actually propaganda? They are right, and in a position where they can demand better.
Simply saying both sides are doing propaganda is completely ignoring the reality of the situation, where one party actually gained something over the course of this war, while the other party is badly humiliated and trying desperately to salvage what they can.
2
u/FlyFit9206 1d ago
At this stage, there are two primary reasons why Trump might accept a deal with Iran that isn’t fully optimal for the US: 1. Pressure from the upcoming US midterm elections. 2. International pressure to restore the free flow of goods through the Strait of Hormuz.
That’s essentially it.
Iranian calculus: Iran aims to wait out Trump. It is using propaganda and creating uncertainty to fuel internal US divisions. The greater the political pressure on Trump ahead of the midterms, the more likely he becomes to accept terms more favorable to the Iranian regime (distinct from the Iranian people).
US calculus: Iran cannot indefinitely sustain its blockade for political or economic reasons. It is widely viewed negatively across the Middle East due to its support for terrorism and regional destabilization. Iran has a limited window before it must cap oil and natural gas wells, a process that could take years to reverse. To buy time, Iran has released millions of barrels of oil into the strait. This serves two purposes: it reduces immediate pressure to cap wells and damages Saudi desalination plants (which supply most of Saudi Arabia’s fresh water). Without redundancy, this could severely impact Saudi Arabia’s ability to support its population. 
Iran has demonstrated the ability to deliver a nuclear payload as far as the UK, and its ballistic missile technology is advancing toward potential threats against the US. US military leaders assess Iran as one of the nations most likely to use nuclear weapons preemptively against Israel or the US. This creates a high-stakes standoff. If the US does not prevail, Iran gains greater regional legitimacy, which could prompt other Middle Eastern countries to pursue nuclear weapons as a counter. This outcome is seen as unacceptable. Reports suggest Putin and Xi share concerns about this scenario.
Whether you like Trump or not is irrelevant. If you want worldwide stability, you should be hoping for Trump having the strength to see this through.
You can squabble about whether it was a good idea or not to get into this war all you want. But, Trump must win this conflict if there is to be stability in the world in our lifetime.
8
u/BlueEmma25 21h ago
You can squabble about whether it was a good idea or not to get into this war all you want. But, Trump must win this conflict if there is to be stability in the world in our lifetime.
Even if Trump could "win" this conflict, and leaving aside for the moment the question of what "winning" means, there is no way it is going to create world stability.
That's a completely outlandish claim.
The "even if you don't like Trump, you need to support him, because the cause is just" framing is also very tiresome. The desirability of the objective is not necessarily being contested, its feasibility is. As things stand there is no viable path to the outcome you want, and that reality needs to be acknowledged.
There also needs to be accountability. The US and Israel launched an unprovoked war, without warning, and caused an international crisis that is threatening to become an economic disaster. Many people, including myself, cannot just look past that.
The way some people just try to sweep the whole mess under the rug like it never happened, and then tell us we need to recommit to the same policies that have just failed so openly and spectacularly, speaks to a remarkable combination of hubris, condescension, and cognitive failure.
-2
u/FlyFit9206 20h ago
Yeah, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
The US and Israel attacked a country that has supported mass terrorism throughout the region, developing a nuclear capability, and telling the world they are going to use it on Israel and the US.
When someone tells you they are going to harm you, it’s in your best interest to listen.
6
u/BlueEmma25 19h ago
The legitimacy of the Israeli and American actions are debatable, but not relevant to the question of consequences. The question is very simple: is the world in a better or worse place today than it was on February 27, 2026? Did their actions improve regional stability, reduce Iran's influence, install a more pliable regime, and have a positive impact on the global economy, or the reverse?
When the methods you choose have massively negative global consequences, "I am small and weak, and Iran is big and strong, so I was scared" doesn't excuse very much.
0
8
u/Darth_Innovader 1d ago
What does Trump prevailing even look like? The only win Trump can scavenge from this is a “deal” he can sell as favorable to ~40% of voters. Is there an outcome where Iran actually abandons its nuclear program? Its missile defense?
4
u/Barking__Pumpkin 23h ago
Apparently Netanyahu has been trying to prevent Trump from finding an off-ramp. That might be supported by the timing of the Lebanon bombardment following the initial ceasefire announcement. I’d predict any agreement that lends legitimacy to Iran will further test the relationship between Trump and his ally in the region. GOP will want voters to forget about this well before midterms but if pro-Israeli lobbies have enough bipartisan influence in Washington gotta wonder if they’ll push for more time to achieve their objectives.
0
u/FlyFit9206 22h ago edited 22h ago
It’s reasonable to assume Netanyahu has his own concerns. That’s a good thing.
It’s important to keep in mind that Hamas and Hezbollah are funded and in large part commanded by Irans revolutionary Guard core.
Israels recent trouble with Hezbollah is Irans way of hitting back at Israel for the bombings. So, I can understand why there is conflict with the two groups right now.
I don’t think the GOP wants voters to forget. Their base is mostly onboard with the actions. I think the GOP wants it out of the news (or at least minimized) so they can move on to higher priority things that resonate more with the independent voters.
2
u/Barking__Pumpkin 20h ago
I meant the economic hardships suffered by the majority of voters due to this conflict, in terms of midterms.
I can’t myself attest to know who is commanding who in this quagmire. Or what their leverage would ultimately be.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/FlyFit9206 23h ago edited 23h ago
This is more about long-term outcomes than immediate voter input. Irans Missile defense system is not and has never been an issue. Their theater ballistic missile and offensive missile capability has been a successful deterrent that can likely remain. What’s more concerning is their unconventional capabilities like funding extremism in the region. While this has benefited Iran greatly, it prevents lasting regional stability.
A deal that shifts regional control to powers such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and to some extent Israel would represent a positive development. The priority must be eliminating any possibility of Iran rebuilding its nuclear program. this could take forms.
Securing Iran’s nuclear material would be a significant win, though that outcome seems unlikely. I have heard rumors Iran may have obtained uranium and yellowcake materials from Russia via the Uranium One mining company, which was at the center of a controversy during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State.
The deal required U.S. government approval, as Uranium One held American mining assets (for example, in Wyoming). Clinton’s State Department was one of several agencies involved in the review. According to the department, no uranium was to be exported to Russia.
If Irans enriched nuclear material contains some of that uranium, it would be a serious international incident with the Clinton’s and the Democratic Party, by association, thrown into the center of it.
This remains a point of contention for the Democratic Party. While it is largely an afterthought now, it does create internal political pressure during a contentious election cycle.
In my view, the core issue is achieving lasting regional stability by blocking Iran’s nuclear development (with a weapons program aimed at nuclear delivery mechanisms) and what appears to be its likely eventual use of nuclear weapons.
1
u/-Sliced- 1d ago
At least if the stock market is any indication - people don’t believe Iran anymore.
5
u/NihiloZero 1d ago
They said from the very beginning (after their religious leader was killed and the girls school was destroyed) that things would NEVER go back to the way things were. And I don't think they've wavered on that.
I've seen people saying that Iran will blink, but... I think Iranians are pissed and, especially now, the country is controlled by zealots in the IRGC who are willing to dig in for the long haul. They have already suffered and they're willing to suffer more. They don't really seem to care much if the global economy suffers -- and why would they? What's that to them?
It seems there is little that can militarily be done to prevent them from blocking the strait -- or they would have been stopped already. Further attacks against them will only just make them dig in harder... sort of like the Vietnamese in the 1970's, but with far more leverage and terrain advantage. Of course, not every leader has very extensive knowledge about the Vietnam war... and that may be part of the problem.
Anyway, I don't think they were ever really playing his game. Instead they seem to be repositioning, digging, in and waiting for complete capitulation. Guess we'll just have to wait and see who blinks first.
2
u/n05h 1d ago
If this war has taught us anything, it’s that the image of a chaotic country led by religious extremists. But instead it’s the US who are the incompetent country led by religious extremists.
10
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans 1d ago
Why not both? Iran's president either resigned or tried to resign this past weekend, they aren't exactly a bastion of stability lol.
25
u/Bullboah 1d ago
When they ayatollahs took power, one of the first things they did was execute an estimated 30,000 people for being ‘the wrong type’ of Muslim, or who were political opponents.
They still execute people for heresy and blasphemy today (as do other countries in the region).
People have been using maximalist language about the US/Republicans/Trump for so long we’ve lost all understanding of what these terms even mean.
21
u/lazydictionary 1d ago
What maximalist language did the other commenter use? They called the current US admin religious extremists. That's not maximalist language. Obviously there are different levels of religious extremism.
But let's also not forget the US religious extremism has been supporting Israel for 70 years, and the genocide of the Palestinian people. How many innocent Palestinians have died because of US religious support of Israel?
There are layers here.
-5
u/Bullboah 1d ago
“Religious extremists” is maximalist language. “Extremist” is obviously a maximalist term!
Incidentally calling US support for Israel ‘religious extremists supporting a genocide’ is also a great example of maximalism.
It’s a way of avoiding discussing the actual reality of a conflict or dispute by distorting things in the most extreme light possible.
It’s politically useful but not helpful if you actually want to understand the world.
5
u/lazydictionary 1d ago
Well your comment is useless, and incorrect, pedantry.
Calling someone an extremist is not maximalist.
If a political view could be scaled 0-100%, a maximalist would be a stance at 0 or 100%. An extremist would be someone at the 10% or 90% thresholds. Numbers are arbitrary.
Also, in this case, objectively, the religious leaders ruling Iran are extremists, as well as a large portion of the US political sphere who have been bought and paid for by Israel, or who fundamentally support Israel due to their own Christian theologies that Israel needs to exist for the end times to occur.
A maximalist is an extremist, but not all extremists are maximalists. Calling someone an extremist does not rule out that someone else can't be more extreme.
0
u/Bullboah 1d ago edited 21h ago
You are calling me pedantic while also insisting on your own definition of “extremism” to be a wider numerical range than maximalist.
And you’re still using maximalism here lol. A large portion of the US political sphere has been bought and paid for by Israel? Really?
Surely, if you’re going to traffic in age-old tropes about a group of Jews using money to control governments you’d have really solid evidence of that right? You aren’t just using maximalist language to massively exaggerate a smaller claim you could actually defend, right?
An easy way to prove the point is that your claims conflict with each other! (One of the common issues with maximalist language).
Are these politicians supporting Israel because they’re bought and paid for? Or “fundamentally” because of religious extremism? It can’t be both!
Go on! Show us your evidence that Israel has bought a large portion of the American government. Show us evidence that actually proves THAT (and not some much smaller claim you’re distorting)
Edit: You blocked me, but AIPAC is American citizens. Not Israel.
14
u/insomniac34 1d ago
Man that's total bullshit. The rhetoric coming out of Hegseth and the DOD these days is absolutely draped in christian nationalist rhetoric and propaganda. Just because they aren't mass executing people like the Ayatollahs doesn't mean they aren't exhibiting terrifying amounts of religious extremism and willingness to push the boundary further in that direction. And this isn't some offhand comments, this is in official statements and communications, not to mention the US government routinely casually referring to its domestic political opponents as extremist enemies of the state
I mean, the dominant political party in the US believes in supporting Israel as part of a greater plan to facilitate the return of Jesus Christ because their religious text says so. You can't make this up.
8
u/paxinfernum 1d ago
Yep. Trump absolutely would execute 30,000 people if he could. He absolutely would turn ICE into his own secret police if he could. He's absolutely going to try to use them to intimidate voters in the midterms. It's the difference between one group being in a country with no pushback or safeguards and the other trying to achieve the same goals in a non-fertile environment.
I'm tired of people being held to a different standard just because they aren't as capable in their evil.
9
u/Bullboah 1d ago
“Trump absolutely would execute 30,000 people if he could”
This is essentially what I’m getting at. There is no understanding of the world because everything is understood in the context of domestic political talking points, and ontologically there cannot be something worse than Trump.
Someone had 30,000 people executed for being the wrong religion? Oh, just like Trump!
2
u/Barking__Pumpkin 23h ago
A study by the Lancet concluded that for each year between 1971 and 2021 unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. resulted in the loss of life of 564,000 people on average. These sanctions are considered illegal under international law. Point is that it’s not just Trump and the justifications don’t really matter.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00189-5/fulltext
7
u/Bullboah 22h ago edited 22h ago
The Lancet is known for ridiculously inflated death tolls and claims. They also published a paper claiming vaccines cause autism. Was that correct because it was published in the Lancet?
Or when they ran a commission on covid origins placing one of RFK’s buddies as director?
Or when they cited a David Duke/KKK supporter as an expert on Israel?
The study you’re linking is no less absurd. If a country starts massacring its own people and the US sanctions it for it, the massacres would count as ‘an effect of US sanctions’. Do you think that makes sense?
3
u/Barking__Pumpkin 19h ago
I’ve not read the Lancet comprehensively. That said, there have been opinion/correspondence pieces that were definitely panned, and hard.
This was a scientific, peer-reviewed study. It makes sense they’d peer-review before releasing it considering the magnitude of the findings—as nobody could discover, then report such a claim without absolute verification—but in answer to your question: I believe it makes sense to adhere to and enforce international and humanitarian law, with few exceptions. I also believe in the sovereignty of nations in both hemispheres—in stark contrast to the Monroe doctrine—and the right for fishermen to go fishing without the fear of being massacred. Chances are you’d expect the same for your countrymen, as you should.
4
u/insomniac34 1d ago
Yes exactly. And US supporters & defenders repeatedly say "well, they don't really mean that" or "you're overreacting" well guess what - you don't get to be in a position of power and leadership and use existing channels of communication to announce your intentions and then to freely back-peddle with no consequences. The US government does this in geopolitics, domestic politics and everywhere else, and part of their charade is acting so offended and back-stabbed when societies and nations react to these things that were said in an official capacity.
It creates this self perpetuating system of outrage for people who can't see what's going on for a variety of reasons, and it's beyond catastrophically depressing that it works so well.
But my point is, when you listen to the words these people are saying, are they REALLY so different from Iran? I argue that they are freely and openly showing us the answer.
-2
u/Darth_Innovader 1d ago
Trumps already killed way more than 30,000 people. You don’t even need to make it a hypothetical, we know empirically that inflicting mass casualties does not bother him.
3
u/bxzidff 20h ago edited 19h ago
You have the American official secretary of defense calling for an actual crusade, belonging to a church that teaches that "empathy is a sin", and compares Trump to Jesus, and preaches that the enemy "wicked souls be delivered to the eternal damnation prepared for them in the name of Jesus" at the Pentagon, and still think it's overexaggerating to call their views religiously extreme speaks volumes about the current state of the US. To complain about maximalist language when faced with that level of zealotry is just normalization.
0
u/Bullboah 18h ago
Lets go through this to demonstrate the point.
You have the American official secretary of defense calling for an actual crusade,
No, you don't. You have a defense secretary that wrote a book years ago calling metaphorically for an "American crusade" about making American culture more christian/conservative. Not an "actual crusade". See a qoute:
"This is a critical battle for American Crusaders. Be that parent who objects at a PTA meeting".
Its an idiotic, embarrassing book on its own, but its obviously not a call for an "actual crusade".
belonging to a church that teaches that "empathy is a sin",
His pastor said "there are good and bad versions of empathy", it being a sin when empathy causes you to do something you know is bad for someone to make them feel better in the short term, like enabling someone with an addiction.
This isn't religious extremism.
and compares Trump to Jesus
Hegseth compared the Press to Pharisees and you're stretching that into he "compares Trump to Jesus".
I don't *like* any of this. But you can't put this on a scale of extremism and sit this anywhere near "executing tens of thousands of people for believing slightly different versions of your religion" or "executing people for blasphemy".
1
u/Darth_Innovader 1d ago
Trump has killed way more people than the ayatollahs though. People can argue the merits of ending USAID in general, but doing it so abruptly was a conscious decision with an obvious lethal outcome. Without even getting into Covid denialism and errant missile strikes, the Trump admin casualty toll is horrific
13
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Comparing cuts to USAID as worse then mass executions is case and point what I’m talking about here.
I’m against the USAID cuts! I think Trump is all around a poor president. But - not sending as much aid to other countries - isn’t remotely comparable to Iran mass executing people for having the wrong religious beliefs.
4
u/Darth_Innovader 1d ago
Wait why is it different? Both are cases of a decision causing enormous and avoidable suffering. Arguably, dying from starvation and AIDs is worse than a firing squad.
14
u/Bullboah 1d ago
“Why is it different?”
Do you even hold this logic when it comes to yourself and your in-group?
Everytime you spend $5 dollars you don’t absolutely need to to survive you could be spending that money on malaria nets which would save lives.
Are you killing someone everyone time you spend the slightest bit of money on yourself instead of on malaria nets?
Do you feel responsible for several deaths every year because you’re not spending every possible cent you can on saving lives around the world?
1
23h ago
[deleted]
1
u/skippy130 22h ago
Not an equivalent situation. If I had committed myself to a plan to feed someone for x amount of time and then suddenly out of nowhere back out early without warning and knowing that person depended on me to not starve, then yes I would be responsible. But as a random individual dropping five bucks whenever I feel like it is not the same situation. Besides that though, to try and equate the level of power and influence a country has over such an endeavor to the impact of an individual is inherently ridiculous.
0
u/stephenkingending 1d ago
Kind of like the term anti-semitic. Israel has overused it to try and shift blame for any and all actions it takes, that it doesn't have meaning anymore.
8
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Did the term ‘racism’ lose all meaning because some people overused it?
Or is this just an insane argument people are using to excuse obvious antisemitism on the left?
1
-10
u/No_Freedom_4098 1d ago
NY Times half an hour ago:
Hezbollah has fired on both Israeli soldiers in Lebanon and targets in northern Israel.
Perennially there is a Q of who fired first? and between those two, who knows. But we know Hezbollah, the "Party of God" and a creation of Iran, is committed to attacking Israel.
13
u/Pseudanonymius 1d ago
Yeah they were firing on Israeli soldiers taking over a fort they were holding. At some point the question of who shot first is just a smokescreen to not have to talk about the atrocities an ally is committing.
4
3
u/Sgt_Boor 1d ago
Why is a non-governmental armed militia, recognized as a terrorist group, holding a fort? Shouldn't 'holding forts' be an army task?
-12
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
This is an Iranian bluff. Closing the strait has significant adverse affects on Iran and barely has any affect on the US other than some political pressure contrived by the media.
The strait has been "fully closed" since the US imposed it's blockade.
1
u/Ambitious_Air5776 18h ago
So just to reframe your comment, you feel that Iran's chosen tactic is deliberately hurt itself instead of its opponent.
My man, get your news from independent sources.
1
u/CyndaquilTurd 16h ago edited 8h ago
Do you disagree that the straits being closed hurt Iran more than the US?
Iran chose this tactic because it doesn't have any other cards to play.
18
u/ActivatingTheBarrier 1d ago
This conflict will continue through at least the next administration. Probably longer.
5
u/Nebachadrezzer 1d ago
Unless the next administration is a goddamn saint of anti-corruption and diplomacy. Throws everyone in prison even remotely accountable.
Then like a 10% chance Iran goes alright but I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to China or Europe.
US has completely ruined it's image for decades.
2
u/Norzon24 14h ago
> I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to China or Europe.
they tried that since Trump 1, turns out they may offer friendly words but are unwilling to eat American secondary sanction to actually deal with Iran
1
u/Nebachadrezzer 7h ago
I'm going to say that some dramatic changes to our grand strategy is needed.
1
u/RamblingSimian 22h ago
Possibly the next administration will start when Trump gets impeached after Republicans lose the midterms … or the 25th amendment is invoked.
2
u/tresslessone 17h ago
I shudder at the thought of a Vance administration. I'm sure he's not as depraved personally, but his agenda is arguably worse than Trump's.
2
u/RamblingSimian 14h ago
Vance lack's Trump's ability to manipulate the MAGA base, so whatever his real character is revealed to be, he won't have the power Trump does.
48
u/DateMasamusubi 1d ago
The absurdity of the negotiations in Islamabad from both sides will be noted in a future book along with the Pakistanis mistranslating and overpromising as mediator hence the theeat to move talks to Oman which Iran bombed.
28
u/DexterBotwin 1d ago
I assume with any military negotiation there is the public messaging for the home audience, public messaging for the international audience, and then actual adults in some room somewhere who know the public messaging is necessary but BS and they get down to real discussion. It seems like either side here has only been delivering the first one
11
u/lazydictionary 1d ago
and then actual adults in some room somewhere who know the public messaging is necessary but BS and they get down to real discussion
There are no adults in the room for the US administration. They all left during the 1st Trump term. The only competent people left, and I use that adjective lightly, are Rubio and Vance.
1
u/DexterBotwin 1d ago
I’m talking less political positions, and more military brass and tenured intelligence and state dept people. Even though there’s been turn over and the actual appointed personnel are incompetent yes men, I would still put faith in the actual institutional leadership in those orgs. Now whether they actually get to be the adults in the room, I guess is the real question / issue.
5
u/lazydictionary 1d ago
Feels like they've been firing, forcing out, or people are resigning at the highest levels who aren't yes men to the current admin.
20
u/divllg 1d ago
Of course they did. Both the administration and Iran are making tons of money promising ceasefire/peace but then pulling this crap once the markets are open so they can then sell their oil futures for millions and billions on the rise of the price of oil while we all pay for stuffing their pockets.
5
u/IronyElSupremo 1d ago edited 1d ago
released right as the [NYSE stock] market was opening
A little disturbance in the large cap index but quickly forgotten. The big U.S. stocks are betting on essentially AI data centers which run mostly on natural gas .. of which the U.S. has more than enough.
There’s other “non-tech stocks” being hit globally (US and non-U.S.), but that is being balanced by demand destruction (in Asia but now being seen in Europe) this time unlike 2021-2022. Across my Bloomberg business scroll this AM, but here’s a similar link:
(not my ordinary reading). There’s a “danger” to both that Europe and even Asia find more independent sources of energy as this drags on (alternative energy sources, North Sea, the U.S. exports in a “net” sort of way, the rest of the Americas, and for China, already switching to Russian). The U.S. was already getting hit with inflation but, having seen oil prices rise before during GW’s admin, it just means smaller autos over time.
Meanwhile both larger belligerents want to sell oil, though with different processes (Tehran would like sanctions lifted, while the current U.S. admin supports Big Fossil over most alternatives). Add - the sticking point is both sides do not want to lose face.
4
u/dashcam4life 1d ago
The headlines for the Strait of Hormuz change every day, to the point it's impossible to keep up. This uncertainty has gone on long enough that it's safe to presume the Strait will be partially or fully closed in perpetuity.
12
u/Pasco08 1d ago
Pakistan was an awful mediator they kept over promising things to Iran.
4
u/Nebachadrezzer 1d ago
I kept seeing violations of ceasefires did Pakistan over promise the ceasefires?
-9
u/M4chsi 1d ago
„to Iran“? They where attacked by an aggressor, objectively speaking. They morally do not owe anyone anything.
13
u/MasterAyy 1d ago
You can disagree with the war and think it should have never happened but it's not like Iran was some sort of peace loving nation that was attacked out of nowhere. "Morally" they have done a lot of things (like funding and arming proxy groups to attack other sovereign nations) that brings aggression on themselves.
8
u/lazydictionary 1d ago
"Morally" they have done a lot of things (like funding and arming proxy groups to attack other sovereign nations) that brings aggression on themselves.
So has the US.
0
u/M4chsi 1d ago
Of course it is not, but by international law it has the moral superiority.
10
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
Not really. Iran violates international law daily.
6
u/M4chsi 1d ago
So does the US. And how does that contribute to the discussion?
2
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
You're falling for Iranian propaganda if you think they are remotely similar. The US does not mass slaughter it's citizens
5
2
u/lazydictionary 22h ago
Neither does Iran. At least not to the level the mainstream media wants you to believe. You are likely referencing the "30k" protesters they killed earlier this year. That number is likely off by a factor of 10, based on actual reporting
And the US has been mass slaughtering people. ICE roundups exist. Innocent people die every day at the hands of the US government.
0
u/CavemanJello 21h ago
The 30,000 is actually from when they overthrew the shah of iran and slaughtered any muslims that weren't in their sect of Islam. I imagine they have killed tens of thousands over the years since then.
The US government does not round up protestors and mass execute them, while Iran does. ICE detainees are given trial and if legal are released. So, you'd have to perform a criminal act to remain detained (entering hte country illegally). The US has engaged in wars sure, but it does not murder its own people en masse.
3
u/Pasco08 1d ago
No they don't they violate it almost daily not to mention the civil rights abuses. Not sure why you thought going to a moral superiority argument would some how save you or be the right one?
0
u/M4chsi 1d ago
It's the same as China and Russia. China has moral superiority over the US, Russia and Iran. Russia had, until the Ukraine-War also moral superiority over the US. All of them violate the international law, as every country does, and still one can have moral superiority over another one.
11
u/Bullboah 1d ago
1). Negotiations aren’t based on moral fairness. They are based on leverage and reality.
2). The Islamic Republic has been hostile to the US since it took power and kidnapped US embassy personnel. It has spent the last decades fighting the US through proxy terror groups and even trying to assassinate US presidents.
Not to mention the fact that it executes its own people in the tens of thousands.
If you want to defend the Islamic Republic of Iran you should probably avoid relying on morality based arguments.
7
u/lazydictionary 1d ago edited 22h ago
...and the US supprted Saddam Hussein in his lengthy and costly war against Iran in the 80s which killed 500k people.
Large portions of Iran have been hostile to the US since the US intervened on behalf of UK after Iran nationalized the oil industry, the US overthrew the government and helped installed the Shah, and then supported him during his corrupt and awful regime.
No one is innocent here.
Way to only paint one side of the story.
Edit: Bullboah is a pro-Israel anti-Iran shill who is completely wrong, as per usual.
0
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Almost all of this is incorrect or severely distorted.
-The US was neutral in the Iraq-Iran war until Iran was invading Iraq. The US provided (not all that significant) levels of support to Iraq because it didn’t want Iran taking over Iraq and pushing into Kuwait or Saudi oil fields after.
-The US did not “install the Shah”, he was already in power before the event left wing sites like The Intercept or Dropsite call a “coup”.
-The US helped the Shah maintain power when the PM tried to abolish parliament and install himself a dictator. US involvement again was pretty limited and the reason the Shah succeeded was that most Iranian forces were loyal to him.
-The UK asked the US to intervene after Iran nationalized its oil industry. The US said no. The US only intervened at all years later to prevent Mossadegh’s coup.
4
u/VERTIKAL19 1d ago
Yes, but US demands don’t really align with leverage and reality. Right now it looks to me the US is just somehow trying to get a settlement that is not that much worse than the 2015 agreement
3
u/Knowledge_Moist 1d ago
1). Negotiations aren’t based on moral fairness. They are based on leverage and reality.
Yes. And the US has zero leverage. Iran does.
2). The Islamic Republic has been hostile to the US since it took power and kidnapped US embassy personnel.
The Islamic Republic took back the sovereignty of Iran. They are hostile to the country that orchestrated a coup to place a monarch and US puppet? Say it ain't so.
If you want to defend Western imperialism, keep doing exactly what you're doing - only give half-truths, whitewash US/Western made atrocities and most importantly, ignore the concept of blowback.
6
u/Bullboah 1d ago
- “And the US has zero leverage. Iran does”.
I’m sorry this is just silly. Iran is far more dependent on the SOH than the US is. Almost all of its export revenues are derived from oil and gas and it literally can’t operate indefinitely without SOH traffic.
- Again, you don’t seem to know Iranian history at all.
What you’re calling a “coup” took place in 1953. The Shah was already the monarch of Iran since 1941. and his father before him was Shah since 1925, when the Pahlavi dynasty took over from the Qajars.
And the Islamic revolution had nothing to do with “Iranian sovereignty” and everything to do with extremist outrage about the Shah’s modernizing of the country with things like allowing women to vote.
Western “progressives” these days are just defending theocrats murdering people to prevent women from having rights. Just call it “anti-imperialism” or “decolonialism” and they’ll eat it up. Horseshoe theory in action.
2
u/M4chsi 23h ago
No one defends "theocrats murdering people to prevent women from having rights"
3
u/Bullboah 23h ago
You just referred to ‘theocrats murdering people to prevent women from having rights as ‘taking back sovereignty’ lol
3
u/M4chsi 1d ago
I don’t want to defend anyone, that’s simply the reality. You can’t say, “This genocide is more of a genocide than that one.” Crimes cannot be balanced against one another.
4
u/Bullboah 1d ago
You said the Iranian regime “morally does not owe anyone anything”. I can’t see how that would be interpreted as anything but a moral defense of Iran
2
u/M4chsi 1d ago
Yes, because they where attacked, as Ukraine got attacked, Gaza and Libanon got attacked.
I guess you cannot understand me.
6
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Yes Iran was “attacked” in the same sense that Gaza and Lebanon were “attacked”, though not Ukraine.
Meaning they attacked Israel/the US first and then pretended the response was unprovoked.
The Islamic republic has been attacking the US directly and indirectly for decades, just as Hezbollah and Hamas have been attacking Israel.
2
u/M4chsi 1d ago
6
u/Bullboah 1d ago
If a store owner pays the mob protection money so they don’t attack his store, does that mean it’s the store owner and not the mob that deserves blame?
1
3
u/f50c13t1 1d ago
Israel cannot allow these negotiations to come to a fruitful end. The Houthis in Yemen have expressed increased military support in Lebanon against the aggressors. This war is another utter failure that didn’t accomplish much if not the strengthening grip of Iran in the region.
1
2
1
u/Driftwoody11 21h ago
Nothing has actually changed in like 2 months. US blockade of Iran continues, Iran's blockade of the straight continues. Nothing is changing until something breaks.
1
u/jotconstructions 14h ago
feels like we are trapped in groundhog day with these headlines every few months
blocking the strait of hormuz is always the go to threat whenever negotiations stall out lol
the constant cycling of the exact same geopolitical drama is just exhausting to watch at this point tbh...
1
u/kitzelbunks 12h ago
Wait until tomorrow, and we’ll be right back where we were, living the banker’s dream and watching an IPO break the ceiling. People are either living in fantasyland, or I am just paranoid. It’s just very strange. It's as if we don’t need the Middle East anymore, but I think we do, and other countries really need it. I can’t understand why the UAE isn’t more upset about people leaving.
Also, I am still trying to figure out exactly why Peter Thiel is living in Argentina. I don’t think that’s indicative of good tidings coming our way. I hope he’s just paranoid about the anti-Christ, but he’s usually the smart money. I think all this lying has to catch up with us- but it's like waiting for an admissions letter from your dream school. There is a sliver of hope waiting to be crushed.
-3
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Respectfully it would be nice to keep this kind of stuff to the low-brow political subs and maintain the at least generally higher level of discussion this place usually has.
1
-19
u/Over-Willingness-933 1d ago
The reason we are in this mess is for 47 years Iran has been sponsoring terrorist proxies and developing nukes. They have massacred their own people for protesting. They need to go. L
11
u/erebus-44 1d ago
Sometimes you don’t need to solve issues, you manage them, as trying to “solve” them puts the US strategically in a worse off position than it was prior. Most individuals understood it, now we opened Pandora’s box, they are getting closer to the US and other nations starting to have supply shocks and actual pain, as most nations have been relying on there oil storages, and limited buying, that will end in the next 2-3 months. So there is no rush to negotiate, we won’t invade, all we can do are air strikes, which have limitations. And we unified the population, as we are now the primary adversary.
There was a reason why we never went into war with Iran, it has a large geographic favorable conditions, with limited supply routes. Doing nothing and having continued unrest, should have been the strategic play, but this administration cannot think more than at a tactical level trying to get wins.
11
u/mrgoodnighthairdo 1d ago edited 1d ago
lol if we're gonna go this route in assigning blame, then the reason we are in this mess is the US and UK meddled in Persian affairs. Their behavior, and the US' failure to prop its own pet dictator, resulted in the Islamic revolution.
There's plenty of blame to go around.
But I think it's clear that, despite the historical context, the reason we are in this mess is because Donald Trump escalated the conflict.
-9
u/Over-Willingness-933 1d ago
The blame is on France for housing the Mullahs in exile. Jimmy Carter for not backing the Shah properly in 1979. A total disaster and citing events in the 1950s is a complete red herring
7
u/mrgoodnighthairdo 1d ago
You're mistaking historical context for cause. The cause, as in the direct blame of this conflict, rests squarely on those who initiated the current state of hostilities.
By asssigning the "blame" to things that happened 40 years ago, you effectively absolve the beligerants engaging in hostilities right now.
2
u/erebus-44 23h ago
Blaming jimmy carter, negates the context, that made providing direct assistance unlikely.
You have Vietnam fall out, you had OPEC against the us invading another opec country (while we were in the middle of a oil crisis), you had a the Shah growing headstrong and becoming less friendly to the US in his later years.
Furthermore, everyone looks at intervention in the gulf war rose color glasses, it’s has limitations and intervening often has unintended consequences.
5
4
0
-6
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
Imagine rooting for an authoritarian theocracy that has mass slaughtered its own citizens and exported more terrorism than the world has ever seen because trump is a moron.
3
u/mrgoodnighthairdo 1d ago
Can you explain how acknowledging the US' piss poor judgement in hearting this conflict is, in your words, "rooting for an authoritarian theocracy?"
-3
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
“Cope lol” to OP’s comment isn’t an acknowledgment of US poor judgement, its a middle finger to someone calling out Iran’s atrocities. It’s also a low quality baiting comment that is void of any nuance
1
-3
u/One-Duty-2376 1d ago
You root for the Epstein class. We root for a peaceful and free world and an end to Israel and America's tyranny, world will be a better place once the evil Empire crumble.
2
u/Biskalus 1d ago
Iran is a big part of this peaceful and free world you envision?
2
u/One-Duty-2376 1d ago
I don't like Iran's government but they are the only one who are standing up to America and Israel's crimes, and that has my respect.
1
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans 1d ago
That's campist logic, pure and simple. "US bad" does not equal "Iran good" or even "Iran justified."
Besides, "standing up" by massacring their own population and illegally and non-consentually using another country (Lebanon) as cannon fodder is the perfect example of a "cure" that is worse than the "ailment" itself.
0
u/Biskalus 1d ago
So killing innocent civilians is something you can look past so long as they oppose the U.S and Israel, who you presumably hate because they do things like kill innocent people?
3
u/One-Duty-2376 1d ago
The Iranian people are under immense economic pressure due to the crippling sanctions that America has imposed on them. You're not seeing the bigger picture here, West is trying to regime change Iran through sheer economic brute force, because it's a threat to Israel's hegemony in the region. In the end, It's simply a battle of will, and I know which side will come on top.
-1
u/CavemanJello 1d ago
Those sanctions are because Iran’s gov spends all of its money on its terrorist proxy networks that it built up for decades. Thats the real reason their economy is the in the dump. If the US were to lift those sanctions they would also have to condone terrorism which it will not do.
1
u/OP_Skis_In_Jeans 1d ago
Spare us the campist propaganda lol. This isn't discussion, it's "my side good other side bad" and it doesn't belong here.
-7
u/Ben_C17 1d ago
Iran has threatened full Strait closures at least a dozen times since 2011. None materialized. Even during the Tanker War in the 80s, they mined it and hit tankers but never shut it down because doing so cuts their own exports and guarantees a direct US military response that ends much worse for them than the current situation.
What we've tracked on panopsik.com is that their actual escalation pattern is calibrated harassment: a seized tanker here, a drone near a carrier group there, enough to move oil prices without triggering a sustained US operation. A full closure requires holding the narrowest point (21 miles wide, overlapping Omani waters), mining shipping lanes, and keeping the US Fifth Fleet at bay. That's a different war than the one they've been managing.
The question is whether this is a new threat or the same bluff with harder language. If backchannel talks actually stopped, that's the signal to watch not the statement itself.
11
u/TiredOfDebates 1d ago
Iran isn't benefitting from Strait traffic because of the US blockade on Iranian ports. I think your premise is flawed.
6
2
1
u/erebus-44 1d ago
Keeping the fleet at bay is easy, large ships don’t do well in narrow seas, in narrow seas, land based army’s control the sea not blue water navy’s. 21 miles is within range of smaller fiber fpv drones, which are hard to counter. A small drone hit in the rudder area effecting the shaft, totals a cargo ship. The key is to stop cargo ships, not war ships.
Closure doesn’t mean you have to sink every ship, you just need a credible threat, whereas companies won’t risk their assets. Which is what they are doing now.
The longer this goes on it puts more pressure on the US as it effects more allied nations, at some point it will become unstable, the question is can Iran internally afford that, before facing internal pressure.
The difference between the past and now, is that the killing of leadership creates an existential threat, it pushes their back against the wall and forces them to fight, along with out maximalist demands, which are essentially giving up there sovereignty, as without a creditable defense you will be attack at will. What is the point with taking a deal, if the US will just try to kill you later?
1
u/shadowboxer47 18h ago
Iran has threatened full Strait closures at least a dozen times since 2011. None materialized.
Are you just... not aware of the last few months?
-4
u/dodgeunhappiness 1d ago
Very well. It is clear that is not possible to negotiate with a terrorist state.
4
-9
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Can we keep this stuff to r/ politics and maintain this for actually discussing geopolitics on a somewhat higher wavelength?
Plenty of places to post about how the Iran war is just because of Epstein or whatever, but it’s nice to have a few spots we can actually discuss geopolitical factors.
-1
u/One-Emu-1103 1d ago
That is geopolitical. Didn't Trump and Netanyahu start this mess?
3
u/Bullboah 1d ago
Again, it would be nice to keep this place to higher level discussion.
If you want to post about how this is all about Mossad pedophile spy’s controlling the US government there are plenty of other forums where people love that kind of thing.
-2
u/One-Emu-1103 1d ago
I didn't say that. I said Jeffrey Epstein was a spy for Israel which he was, besties with Trump, which he was and that Trump is a convicted felon which he is. It's all about character.
3
u/Bullboah 1d ago
“Epstein was a spy for Israel”.
Again, there are plenty of other places to talk about low-brow conspiracies you see on Dropsite News or the intercept or twitch/tiktok whatever.
-1
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
No sure what your comment means. This is explicitly a discussion of geopolitics.
2
u/Bullboah 1d ago
“On a somewhat higher wavelength”.
There are plenty of places you can post ‘DAE Iran war because of Epstein?’ to roaring applause but it would be nice to keep this place to higher level discussion.
-3
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
I am not sure if you are replying to the wrong person, or did not read my comment:
https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1ttti36/comment/op56b72/
3
u/Bullboah 1d ago
I am not sure what your initial comment means if not to defend the posting of lowbrow ‘Iran because Epstein’ comments which imo aren’t suited here
2
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
I am very confused. I do not believe "Iran because Epstein", my comment is opposing u/One-Emu-1103 moronic stance and provides evidence in the form of recorded statements from Iranian leadership themselves and removes the partisan stance by referencing democratic politicians who agree with the actions in Iran.
-5
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago edited 1d ago
A war no one wanted to start for good reason? This is a terrible take and shows ignorance of Iran, geopolitics and the history of events that led us here. See below.
Ali Motahari, former Vice Speaker of Parliament (May 24, 2022): “When we first entered nuclear activities, our goal was to build a bomb. If we had been able to keep it secret and test the bomb, the matter would have been finished. Since we had already started, we should have gone all the way to the end.”
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DV1laeFkxU4
According to CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper, Iranian attacks on US happened more than 350 times before the operation began:
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DYXkXHdveNH/
"I want Iran to know if I am president, we will attack Iran" Hillary Clinton 2008
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DVZ8X7zjEcT/
List of democrats over the last decade explaining the Iran threat and that they will attack Iran.
https://www.instagram.com/reels/DWSxoLcDeRS/
The Iranians have in the past explicitly stated their intentions with the nuclear weapons:
5
u/One-Emu-1103 1d ago
And they placed sanctions on Iran because they knew what would happen if we attacked Iran - the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
-2
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
Closing the straits is an Iranian bluff. Closing the strait has significant adverse effects and attrition on Iran and barely has any effect on the US other than some political pressure contrived by the media.
The strait has been "fully closed" since the US imposed it's blockade. Its been a tenable and effective strategy so far.
6
u/One-Emu-1103 1d ago
If it is why is it closed?
-3
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
Because the IRGC is militarily defeated and this is the last straw they are grasping at. The last thing the IRGC has is their troops to control the regime from collapsing and keep the majority of Iranians under the control of their regime. To do this they need to pay their toops, this is the same fundamental issue that happened in the collapse of the roman empire - funding the military. The Iranian economy is already in freefall. The IRGC thought they can survive by "closing" the straits - which actually means just black mailing ships with crypto tolls to pass.
The US strategy to block the striates has been effective at countering their goal. Its also the reason you see the US has no problem stalling until they get the terms of surrender they want from the IRGC.
The US holds all the cards at the moment and have time on their side.
4
u/LivefromPhoenix 1d ago
The US holds all the cards at the moment and have time on their side.
Seems kind of delusional to expect a democracy to indefinitely sustain an unpopular war that's directly impacting the finances of every voter. The lose condition for the US isn't "the economy collapses", it's "voters get really pissed off about high prices". Despite their devotion to Trump we're bound to see more republican defections as inflation ticks higher.
1
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
The whole point of my comment is that Iran does not have an "indefinite" time to survive the blockade.
Why do you feel the US would need to sustain an indefinite war? The war has only gone on for a few months, one of the shortest wars in all of recorded history. Even conventional SHORT wars are few years at the least.
Gas prices are only slightly higher and are much lower then predicted at the start of the war.
Inflation indicators are going down as well.
5
u/LivefromPhoenix 1d ago
The whole point of my comment is that Iran does not have an "indefinite" time to survive the blockade.
Why do you feel the US would need to sustain an indefinite war? The war has only gone on for a few months, one of the shortest wars in all of recorded history. Even conventional SHORT wars are few years at the least.
Indefinite as in we have no idea when (or if) Iran will collapse. The American public will be increasingly incensed at a war that has no end in sight and no clear win conditions. Especially considering neocons can't help but constantly make completely farcical predictions about Iran's imminent capitulation.
Gas prices are only slightly higher and are much lower then predicted at the start of the war.
Gas prices are lower initially than expected due to a literally unprecedented global strategic reserve drawdown and the market assuming Trump is going to ram through a peace deal shortly. If we shift from "a peace deal is definitely coming this weekend" to "idk we'll end it when Iran gives up" we'll be losing our primary stabilizers for oil prices.
You're looking at a massive short term effort to keep prices somewhat stable in anticipation of a quick peace deal and incorrectly assuming that's just the default.
Inflation indicators are going down as well.
Which indicators are those?
1
u/CyndaquilTurd 1d ago
> no clear win conditions
The US has made the conditions very clear. Give up the dust and sign (what i call a surrender) an agreement with a commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons.
>neocons can't help but constantly make completely farcical predictions about Iran's imminent capitulation.
I agree, many of the pundits on this war are clowns and should not be listened to, on both sides. Stick to official channels and read between the lines when the subject is obviously classified/sensitive or covert.
>Gas prices
The US does not purchase oil that comes from the straits and there is no shortage of supply of oil - its a temporary issue.
This is what the SPRs are for. The war in Iran is more important and globally significant than a small temporary increase in fuel prices.
There is no shortage of oil underground. Both the US, Canada, and the Middle East countries can turn on the taps. UAS just left OPEC, and OPEC can decide to increase production.
Oil is not a significant factor in the war for the US other than contrived political pressure.
>Inflation indicators are going down as well.
Over the last few years.
→ More replies (0)
-1
u/imbakinacake 1d ago
Cutting off your nose to spite your face certainly is a bold strategy. Let's see how long this lasts. It's kind of their main bread and butter. So no straight = no Iran economy
175
u/Socraman 1d ago
I feel like I'm living in Groundhog Day.