So we’re not going for Regime change and we want them to kesp their oil economy for after the settlement?
I think might be broke. You will get regime change if that’s true.
So we’re leaving Kharg island for now because it could be good for a future Iran?
I’m just trying to follow your logic
They’re definitely not broke - they have literal billions of dollars still flowing in from oil sales on shipments that went out before the blockade and have made it through since then.
But that doesn’t mean that people living there can afford anything or get access to medical care, food or whatever. That’s the only real risk Iran has, because the only way their oil infrastructure gets hit is if one of the other Arab countries or Israel does it, and I don’t think that’s gonna happen.
I’m glad DJT saw the folly of trying to force ships through the Strait while ostensibly trying to negotiate a deal, but it really looks weak to have started than then immediately crawfished on it.
2 Likes
Yes. If that wasn’t the goal the bridges power plants and Kharg would wrap this up…
And cause a disaster nobody wants to cause for fun.
Regardless of how much stuff we blow up, we’re not overthrowing their government and replacing it with something friendly without an occupation, and we’re not getting control of their uranium unless we go take it.
I don’t think either of those are in the cards, and they shouldn’t be. Making either of those moves would be an ego thing more than strategic, and it would be disastrous.
So at what point would you resort to that action? Do you think regime change will happen if a deal is made with the current regime?
1 Like
I’m making some leaps. Here they are:
—1—
If they hit Kharg and the bridges there are senior people in the US military who think they could pull out and have a regime change.
There are senior people in the military who think it’s close to falling in now.
This I’m certain of.
Watch the general Kean guy and you get some water cooler gossip by mistake you are good at reading people.
They could be wrong but I’m as certain as an outsider news junky can be these are currently working assumptions from some people that guy talks to. It’s not just propaganda.
—-2—
Adding that to the weird negotiations - and I have to hope DT knows the guys who let Gaza get turned to rubble and kept propping up Hamas while Gaza was getting bulldozed won’t surrender or negotiate realistically.
—-So—-
I think the US thinks Iran is about to fall in on itself and I think that Iran is correct about DT not negotiating in good faith. If this is true, DT believes he holds the cards and they should give him what he wants or burn.
That’s my tea leaf reading for the week.
(@Cougardue - fair questions and I could see your points. I am usually really good at figuring out what organizations are doing with very limited data at work. This is my first try at reading the news similarly lol)
1 Like
Generals always think their plan will win the war
5 Likes
The problem is that they THOUGHT that all would happen just by taking out a swath of the top guys, which shows how little our side understood about their leadership. That obviously didn’t happen then, and it isn’t going to happen if move people get killed. Even if it does happen, we don’t have enough influence to replace the dead guys with cooperative ones - that’s off the table.
This is what happens when you purge the military of high-level experience or choose to sideline intelligence assets because they don’t say what the leadership wants to hear. The people making the decisions simply do not understand their adversaries - at all.
5 Likes
Agreed. I’m not saying they are right but I think that’s the play book. I’m sure there will be encouraging announcements about negotiations all week lol.
The CIA spends tons of resources figuring out what every nation has - so I’m hoping they have a really keen view into our big enemies which includes Iran.
(Also: I think they know what we know. One war front is telling the markets we are a week away the entire time.)
You don’t, or didn’t, lose sleep because you weren’t connected to any of the 4400 US or 275,000 Iraqi lives lost.
Saddam was caught 9 months into the 8 year, 8 month travesty.
The idea that Iran will be easier is beyond foolish thinking. One really has to have their head buried deep in the orange sand to believe that nonsense.
And Iran is not a threat to the US. Either was Iraq.
The US, however, has been a threat to Iran since the 1950s when we over through their democratically elected government.
1 Like
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the point of whether Iran was dangerous or not.
You are self assured you are right. I’m self assured you are wrong.
I think we’ve been around in circles about this already.
I’m a pragmatist. I don’t care about the history beyond gaining an understanding of how we got here. There is no excuse for many of Irans actions - whether they did it or had proxies do it.
Iran would be easy. The US could end them tomorrow with 1000 conventional bombs. The goal isn’t win at all costs.
Because killing 91 million people is difficult, and they have a name for that.
4 Likes
And the fact is there has been no clear goal since the beginning of this fiasco.
Is it finally coming to a close?
Oil down 10% this morning.
You beat me to it. Was just reading that and about to post it.
Someone already trying to undermine the potential agreement with threats.
It seems to still be very early in the process but hopefully they find something to agree on. We really need this thing to end one way or another.
3 Likes
2 Likes
So basically the Obama deal?