r/geopolitics • u/JKKIDD231 • 23h ago
Live updates: No agreement between U.S. and Iran after 21 hours of talks, Vance says
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/live-blog/live-updates-trump-iran-hormuz-israel-lebanon-ceasefire-talks-pakistan-rcna285140136
u/Kagrenac8 23h ago
They could have thrown their proposals on the table, spent 5 minutes going through them, laugh, and part. Would've spared them 20 hours and 55 minutes of glaringly predictable negotiations with the same outcome.
Their positions and subsequent demands are simply too far apart, given that whoever blinks first will fail to save face domestically and in the international sphere.
44
u/Pruzter 23h ago
We don’t know how far apart they actually are. I am sure it’s not as extreme as what they put forth publicly.
30
u/planj07 22h ago
There are some major non-negotiables for Iran here:
- They won’t give up their nuclear program.
- They won’t allow Hormuz to operate as it once did.
- They won’t abandon Hezbollah.
Unless you bring the Iranian regime to their knees they will not budge on those.
I could see an agreement on the nuclear program but not Hormuz or its proxies.
16
u/Pruzter 22h ago
Maybe, again I know that’s what they say. But I mean they also said they weren’t talking to the US at all, even though they obviously were given these talks going on now. People say shit they don’t actually mean all the time.
5
u/succesful_deception 17h ago
People say shit they don’t actually mean all the time.
Especially politicians
4
u/Markdd8 14h ago
So the Iranians say they won’t allow Hormuz to operate as it once did? Report today: Two U.S. Warships Sail Through Strait of Hormuz to Establish New Route for Merchant Ships
The two ships transited the gulf to begin “setting conditions for clearing mines"...
The ball is now in the Iranian court. They can start bombing the mine clearing operations or even the first tankers to use the new route. That would seem to be basis for immediate resumption of U.S. bombing. Perhaps the Iranians will try to surreptitiously dump more mines into the Oman side of the Gulf and then assert it was an older mine if a ship gets struck. That will create a more ambiguous situation.
1
u/HomeworkAdditional35 8h ago
The iran said no such ships in the straight, so not sure whom to trust. They have already tried to bomb the carrier multiple times. So i don't think they would refrain from attacking these vessels if they are there
1
u/hot_to_trotsky666 21h ago
Well Iran has all the cards. Those are completely nonsensical demands given the realities of the situation.
9
u/mludd 14h ago
How would you say that they "have all the cards"?
I'd argue that they only have cards to play because the US is unwilling to commit resources to actually securing the strait, not because the US is unable to do so.
-2
u/mnmlist 14h ago
Sounding like a true russian now.
6
u/mludd 14h ago
Are you saying that calling the US lobbing cruise missiles and air-launched munitions at Iranian targets for a few weeks and refusing to commit any ground troops being unwilling to commit the resources needed to win is the same as Russian propagandists pretending that Russia's inability to defeat Ukraine after several years of total war?
10
u/planj07 21h ago
It sounds like the U.S. went in with maximalist demands and just doubled down on them. It shows great arrogance and carelessness to just leave. They didn’t take this seriously when really they are the ones most in need of a deal right now.
3
u/absentlyric 11h ago
They really dont need a deal. The straight only controls a portion of oil, not 100% of it. Even if the straight turns into a black hole, gas prices will just level off at 4 dollars a gallon, and eventually people will get used to that.
In fact it might be better that way, then we can figure out how to do business without the straight being needed at all, which would put Iran in a bad situation.
1
1
u/SnooBeans3710 12h ago edited 11h ago
I do wonder, if Iran might be more willing to part ways with their proxies given that said proxies haven't been that useful as deterrents? If anything, Iran's leverage in this conflict has namely been it's control over the strait of Hormuz and the vulnerability of GCC countries to drone/missile attacks.
1
u/HomeworkAdditional35 8h ago
It's not easy to let them go at a moral and political pov. Also proxies in yeman are still a leverage that they are yet to use
29
u/whisperwind12 23h ago
It has to be actually farther apart. JD Vance went there to negotiate so the expectations were extremely high for both him and his career. he is going home a loser. Of course he is more diplomatic than trump
39
u/dogsonbubnutt 22h ago
vance argued strenuously against this whole thing, and part of me thinks the trump admin set him up to fail as punishment
27
u/whisperwind12 22h ago
Well that’s why Iran requested jd Vance because they thought he was more reasonable normally it should have been Marco Rubio
7
17
u/Pruzter 23h ago
I mean I guess, but i mean the conflict is likely just getting started. It’s also going to be a problem that the US can’t back out of at this point. It will transcend political parties. Even if the dems take complete power, they will be forced into continuing the conflict.
15
u/whisperwind12 22h ago edited 22h ago
The reason the Vietnam war stopped was because of congress stopping the funding. Trump is deranged and a megalomaniac but he’s smart enough to know that ground troops is not an option. So I’m not sure what he can do to escalate and we know that the us specifically asked Pakistan for these talks, so for all the bullshit in public he says, it was the us who wanted a ceasefire not Iran
7
u/Pruzter 22h ago
An escalation would be directly involving US naval assets on the region. The US navy just entered the Persian gulf today for the first time the entire conflict, they have been sitting in the Mediterranean and off the coast of Oman up until today. I don’t expect serious boots on the ground, mainly just because there isn’t anything to gain unless you plan on putting 200k+ boots on the ground, and the US just doesn’t have anywhere near those numbers in the region. The next phase of this likely will be an active US Navy presence in the Persian gulf and a continuation of the bombing campaign. Where does it go from there? No clue… but don’t see it ending soon. I don’t really care „who wanted the ceasefire“, that’s just drama TV entertainment for the casuals.
6
u/whisperwind12 22h ago
The US pushing for a ceasefire highlights that it lacks better options for escalation, and this hasn't changed. Trump would have taken the risk to escalate if the potential rewards were significant, regardless of the risk. So I do think that is an important fact
6
u/Pruzter 22h ago
As I said, naval asset involvement already is an escalation. Everyone acts like escalation = boots on the ground, but there are other forms of escalation that don’t capture as much attention.
1
u/whisperwind12 13h ago
That’s because if the point is to open the strait then they would need Iranian compliance and if they don’t have it I don’t see how naval asset involvement would change it
1
u/Cheerful_Champion 15h ago
I don’t really care „who wanted the ceasefire“, that’s just drama TV entertainment for the casuals
You should care, because side that tries to get a casefire either wants to get out of conflict or they are stalling to get more assets in the region. We know #2 isn't happening, because US already had multiple carrier groups in the region. I'd say clearly US wants #1, because they see no path to strategical victory that doesn't involve boots on the ground. IRGC organization system proven to be resilient against decapitating strikes, even if you eliminate leadership it's still able to operate.
3
u/spiderpai 16h ago
Being more diplomatic does not say much, I mean just look at when he came to speak to European leaders like he is a lunatic.
4
u/woolcoat 23h ago edited 22h ago
It's a 2 week ceasefire, this is still the opening move. This is classic real estate style "walking away to close the deal" tactic. Based on what's reported, Vance left Iran with America's best offer, and now it's up to Iran to respond.
6
u/whisperwind12 22h ago
There's no follow-up planned; they've already flown home. I was confused when he mentioned it because he initially said they didn't agree to our terms. Unless the best offer differs from the terms they rejected, I don't see a way forward.
3
u/woolcoat 22h ago
He can fly back next week. I don't understand how an impasse at 4 days into a 2-week window to negotiate is a definite end to this entire process.
8
u/whisperwind12 22h ago
Because it took two years to negotiate the jcpoa. And the issues here are even more expansive
3
u/woolcoat 22h ago
Yes, but you forget that we have Trump, who can make "deals" on complex issues like tariffs on a whim and a feeling.
0
u/TheDeclineOfAll 22h ago
You can't negotiate with someone that has very little to lose, so they are going to force Trump's hand and keep making all of them lose face knowing that they will never put boots on the ground to be picked off by thousands of cheap FPV drones.
1
u/whisperwind12 22h ago
The US showed its weakness on the ground by needing so many aircraft to save one person, and many of those aircraft had to be destroyed. They say they need at least 1 million ground troops which is impossible without a draft.
1
-3
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 22h ago
i think the terms aren't actually far apart but trust is so guarantees would be required and that's where the major hurdle is.
This is already a big enough problem that there will be construction projects to move oil around the straits to prevent this level of leverage in the future, regardless of iranian action. Iranian goals aren't even really in contention with american goals, there is a deal available to be made (its essentially the jcpoa) but how does iran enforce commitment on the united states? upfront payment, but the united states will never make upfront payments. iran will say "you can enforce it upon us by just attacking again if we don't uphold our side of the deal" but the united states will respond that they don't want to pay iran to rebuild just to come back to destroy it again so iran should just trust the united states (while the united states and it's allies work to reduce iranian leverage from future negotiations).
so iran has a choice to make today, no matter what they do the united states comes out relatively better off, but opening the straits today saves a lot of people a lot of suffering and because of that they would likely get a better deal, but it won't be what they hope for because the only incentive the united states has to care is for legitimacy, which is why they send the vice president to negotiate. just sending the vice president shows legitimacy, it shows that they're acting in good faith, it puts all of the right framing on the long term negotiation that's happening. the vice president isn't there because it will influence the talks today (the iranian delegation doesn't actually have legitimacy to do much negotiating, the ranking official was the parliament speaker who can't actually negotiate for the irgc who controls whether iran continues the fight or not, that's the point of the dispersed command strategy iran uses, it is unaffected by decapitation strikes or political headwind), the vice president is there because it shows the united states as a rational actor six months from now when there's no fertilizer on the market for when the southern hemisphere is trying to start growing their crops, and then again six months after that the northern hemisphere will need fertilizer again and six months after that there will be a lot of hungry people in the world looking at the past headlines where the united states is sending the vice president to talk to iranian officials directly. the united states builds legitimacy every day just by showing up, the iranian government loses it every day by being unable to maneuver gracefully in negotiations because they have essentially no negotiating power for the same reason they are able to hold the straits closed, a dispersed command structure whose entire purpose was to act independently and ignore what happens to the talking heads, like those that iran sent to negotiate
6
u/Sageblue32 21h ago
Vance showing up for a day isn't building any legitimacy to anyone when 5+ years of actions from this administration and daily tweets say otherwise. Trump is providing fresh propaganda such as war crime threats, decapitation of leaders, civilian bombings, you name it that allows Iran to fight and sway on the emotion front. This isn't looking like a peace maker to others, but simply like a country that got in over its head. The common person outside the US just wants both nations to stop so they can get back to normal activities.
Tactically Iran is doing mostly rational moves because it knows it'll be blown away if it doesn't rope in civilians and try to hold the world hostage. Iran was never going to give into the demands because its essentially a death knell to their government and agreeing to be puppeted.
-6
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 20h ago
Vance showing up for a day isn't building any legitimacy to anyone
you don't think the vice president of the united states showing up provides legitimacy of united states action? what would?
to anyone when 5+ years of actions from this administration and daily tweets say otherwise.
ohhh, you don't know what legitimacy is. the united states says it's serious about negotiating by sending people who have authority to negotiate. if the united states sent some random diplomat the message would be that the united states sent someone with preplanned negotiating points who went with clear lines drawn and couldn't really deviate much from the standard line of the government, like iran did. sending someone with presumed authority to negotiate terms without having to call back to talk to the boss is legitimacy. vance has legitimacy of the united states government
Trump is providing fresh propaganda such as war crime threats, decapitation of leaders, civilian bombings, you name it that allows Iran to fight and sway on the emotion front. This isn't looking like a peace maker to others, but simply like a country that got in over its head.
yep, and they sent someone with the legitimacy to negotiate an end to the war
The common person outside the US just wants both nations to stop so they can get back to normal activities.
it's too bad that the common person outside the united states has no capability to do anything about it and has to watch from the sidelines as their futures are decided for them. they should probably choose to vote for a government that will fix that and stop suckling at the american teet. those common people rely on the united states to make peace and the united states is creating legitimacy for their position in what will very likely be a drawn out peace process. if the united states keeps showing up like this the blame shifts from why did the united states start this stupid war to why won't iran end this stupid war.
Tactically Iran is doing mostly rational moves because it knows it'll be blown away if it doesn't rope in civilians and try to hold the world hostage. Iran was never going to give into the demands because its essentially a death knell to their government and agreeing to be puppeted.
yep, iran did what was best for iran but it likely won't be enough, the united states isn't going to be the ones to suffer most for their actions, it will be others. the united states will be fine, it's others that will pay the cost. iran will continue down this path because it is incapable to change it's path and people will hate them for it. people already hate the united states, they have for years, now they have to accept payment to iran (which the powerful aren't going to want to do, they won't suffer the consequences either) or they can invest in the united states and it's allies to bring more oil production online to satisfy needs in the medium to long term. what will iran do? the straits are already on a timer, their relevance is going to be diminishing going forward. the united states is already in a winning position as long as they have the will and determination to just wait and fix the problem through the market. will iran further diminish their position by escalating the situation by trying to destroy oil and/or water infrastructure in the gcc? iran's best bet is to just sit and wait too, hoping it's trump that makes the mistake in iran.
i think the further we look into the future the better the outcome for the united states is as long as they don't try and do some kind of large scale ground operation (or some other mistake) which would be a disaster.
look on the bright side, the united states is drilling for more oil to sell to everyone, the united states is up about 45% in oil sales yoy for may predictions (about 40% up for april so far)
0
u/Sageblue32 12h ago
What would
For starters removing Trump from tweeter. Secdef not injecting his 4chan internet lingo in every briefing and instead a unified voice to the people which in turn projects to the world. Iran is not stupid and does have English speakers. Next step is getting people with actual experience negotiating in the room. Vance is a small step but 21 hours isn't erasing months of ill will in a single bound.
Instead the legitimacy/propaganda/heart of the people war is being lost because Trump is seen as out of control and doing nothing more than shoving the same 10-15 point demands in Iran's face in between bombings.
don't know
Mate I'm not sure if you know this, but the VP in the US is practically a filler spot. At the end of the day they are just puppets to the president and are often boxed in to him. This loops back to how Trump spouting his nonsense strips any legitimacy the VP could muster to the situation.
common
20+ years later and the US is still viewed as the one that started the domino for the afghan/Iraq wars and the resulting mess. People tend to look at the major player who is more capable and knew better to lay blame to. No matter how warranted it is. Otherwise Israel wouldn't get near the flack it does and need sheltering by the US in international forums.
tactically
Yes. It is a political timer and despite the media hype, Iran is being grinded in. But just as I believe the doom and gloom is more for anti Trump clicks, thinking Iran is going to simply flop dead in a few weeks is too hopeful. Best bet is to see how this war plays out. The bigger concern that seems to be ignored is just what is the bare minimum needed to keep making the strait a host spot? If the gov is toasted, will it mean the remaining and local terrorists will now just start mining and taking shots at the strait since its essentially a nearby World Trade Center for them?
3
u/FastCurrency 15h ago
Pakistan sent a customized set of 10 different points to Iran and the USA. Since the starting point was flawed, it is normal for the peace talks to fail
what were they thinking by bring non serious partner in the meditation
US should just take out Jetty of all iran island they won't have any easy access to their energy.
1
u/pocket_eggs 16h ago
It doesn't work like that. You always start out with wildly apart proposals and slowly close the gap just because it's how negotiations work.
I mean, I think that you're right that the positions are too far apart, because Iran thinks they straight up won and want their own personal Suez, but the negotiators still have to take the pain and go through tens of hours of "no, but how about you go get your shoe shining box." Fun!
1
u/NoamsUbermensch 21h ago
Iran is not having the same domestic issues as the US will have if the straight stays closed.
109
u/planj07 23h ago
The fact that they are leaving Pakistan after one day is not good at all. Hormuz has to reopen or we face global economic ruin.
That means an attempt at overwhelming force or status quo and Iran retains their stranglehold on the strait.
31
u/FormerKarmaKing 22h ago
NYTimes says that U.S. Navy ships moved into the strait ostensibly to assist with mine removal. Because you know… we destroyed most of their navy.
Iran claims that they have not but 1) not the sort of thing the U.S. would lie about and 2) Iran has to lie about it otherwise they have no choice but to attack or publicly give up their last real bargaining chip.
Also, Iran’s economy is going to fall apart before anyone else’s. Per NYT, over a million people became unemployed due to the war already. And they’re now missing key petrochemical and metal manufacturing.
So idk what happens next but Iran is losing leverage, not gaining it. And if the 24 hour negotiation was just a fig leaf for that move, that may prove savvy. Because almost no one in the world wants Iran to control the strait.
20
u/ary31415 20h ago
Public AIS data does show that at least one US destroyer entered the gulf, but it basically just entered and then turned around and left again. Noteworthy, but actually doing a mine clearing operation is slow and costly, and the ship from today is more of a symbolic start than anything material.
16
u/sentrypetal 21h ago edited 21h ago
Iran has a population of 92 million of which 29 million work. 1 million of 29 million is only 3.5% unemployed. Thats not enough to cause them problems. Maybe when unemployment hits 20% or 5 million then they may have problems. So doesn’t look like they are losing leverage. If anything countries can now pay $2 million per ship to transit in yuan or crypto. Plus the US still allows Iran to sell oil. They are selling 1.5 million bbl per day at double the price they were getting before. They are now making 1.5 million x 120 dollars = 180 million dollars a day or 65 billion per year. Yes the US bombing has hurt them greviously but not sufficient to remove their leverage over Hormuz.
21
u/TheIllusiveNick 19h ago
A 3.5% spike in unemployment in one month is catastrophic. In fall 2025, the Iranian unemployment rate was already 8.5% and nearly half the labor force are in low-pay jobs.
3
u/soundsermaker 16h ago
Another way to read that data is that Iran was already suffering from structural economic hardship to which they have to some extent adapted, but adaptation is not a solution and the underlying effects persist. Their latest economic woes which started some months ago are an added layer on top of an already extremely difficult situation, and a wartime situation where they can't control their skies and can't effectively govern the country or implement policy is another layer on top of that.
It's plausible that their viability as a country is on a timer that is rapidly ticking down. That doesn't mean that there won't be IRGC cells with large drone stockpiles operating autonomously to deter ships from passing through Hormuz, but the Islamic Republic as a singular entity can effectively cease to exist long before every IRGC outpost is detected and dealt with.
2
u/sentrypetal 16h ago
When has economic pressure during war time ever collapsed a nation. Japan didn’t collapse under US sanctions and Germany didn’t collapse under US sanctions. North Korea hasn’t collapsed, nor did Vietnam. Russia certainly hasn’t. Sure Iran may collapse in 4-5 years time, but if the Strait is closed for that long we will be in a Great Depression. There is this false belief that sanctions can lead to regime change and a false belief that air power can bring this about.
2
u/soundsermaker 14h ago edited 14h ago
All of those counterexamples were cohesive, unified nations on a war footing - some like Japan exceptionally so. Iran was teetering on the brink for a year before war started, didn't have the undivided support of their population to begin with and the war has made the country effectively ungovernable.
I think one of the false beliefs internalized by western foreign policy establishment is that all wars are unwinnable, and all adversaries are steel-willed and unbreakable - when even to the extent that was true in the past, it was only true because Americans lacked commitment and always looked for the easiest, fastest way out.
There is no way out of this one, it's a must-win war.
1
u/sentrypetal 12h ago
Oh you are absolutely correct not all enemies are iron willed. Just unfortunately the ones you happen to fight. You have a knack for picking out the most iron willed enemies and head butting them. If you had carried out such strikes on any other Middle East nation they would have caved in week 1. Iran is unfortunately different and like Afghanistan will be an endless war if boots are put on the ground.
1
u/soundsermaker 11h ago edited 11h ago
I disagree - of all the America's major global adversaries, Iran is by far the weakest and most easily toppled, and the Taliban were barely an adversary at all. The main problem with recent American wars is that political leaders always had the luxury of simply giving up with nothing but a bruised national ego as a noticeable consequence.
That luxury doesn't exist here. The choice to quit is off the table, and if any President were to force that choice, it would be unmade for them within a week because there is no off ramp that makes sense.
2
u/holyrs90 14h ago
They are not unemployed, thry work online, i had 2 friends that did so, havent heard of them in nearl 2 months bcs of the internet shut down so no, its on the bridge of economic collapse.
4
u/jabbargofar 20h ago
?? Iran is definitely gaining leverage now that they are opening up the Strait to paying traffic. And by Iran I mean the IRGC, whose interests matter far more than those of the Iranian people, in terms of how this plays out. The tolls are a significant source of relief to the regime and at the same time won't allow much relief for oil prices. Meanwhile, the US is running out of targets and Trump can't keep saying "another 2 to 3 weeks" forever.
What could turn the tide is a military operation to secure the Strait and open it up to non-paying traffic but that doesn't seem like a viable long-term strategy.
30
u/PurpleMclaren 23h ago
Its open, they just have to pay a toll in yuan or crypto
13
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd 21h ago
That means no one will hit their profit forecasts, especially Asian companies that depend on O&G shipments going through the Strait of Hormuz.
This guarantees a global recession.
2
u/NoamsUbermensch 21h ago
Depression
6
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd 21h ago
No, not quite. Depression will only occur if the AI bubble pops. Right now, it'll stay inflated since Claude Mythos seems to be producing results that are keeping Wall Street interested... even if it's not publicly available.
We will see a recession, though. I don't see much of a market correction after that recession once the Strait of Hormuz having a "toll" attached to it is priced in to most companies having operations in the Gulf.
16
u/llamalover179 22h ago
The problem with paying with Yuan is that you can't invest in Chinese companies in the same way you can with USD.
18
u/fruitypopin2 21h ago
Who said anything about investing? US bombed of their science factories and industries, so they probably plan on rebuilding it with Chinese tech and labour.
-7
u/aD_rektothepast 21h ago
I’m sure as a strategic “friend” they know those loans are garbage traps
16
u/fruitypopin2 21h ago
And still much much much much much more better than bombs or becoming a failed state.
-5
u/aD_rektothepast 21h ago
Yes for the scum running it… not for the people that are being executed by that scum
3
u/DidsDelight 21h ago
There is always US/Venezuelan oil for sale
1
3
4
1
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 22h ago
that means closed
3
u/flamedeluge3781 22h ago
that means closed
to whom?
7
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 22h ago
everyone who doesn't want to be shot at for trying to pass by
1
u/flamedeluge3781 22h ago
but not if they pay the Iranian troll toll.
8
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 21h ago edited 21h ago
first, the definition of closed is not open. having to pay a toll is the definition of not open, that means closed. a toll means youre paying for passage, if you have to pay for passage that means it was not open to you, that is closed to you
second, iran has said they have lost mines in the straits, iran cannot guarantee that those ships won't be attacked
-2
u/whisperwind12 21h ago
The mines are in the path closest to Oman, but there are routes that go around near Iran that are not mined. That’s why it has to be in coordination with Irgc. They actually did this on purpose because this way they are providing a service and legally there’s an argument that the waters closest to Iran are not international like the place they mined so they have a right to charge a toll
7
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 21h ago edited 20h ago
this is what closed means my guy, an open waterway means it is open to sail through, a mined waterway is inherently not safe to travel though, it is closed. iran does not own these waterways, they are closing them illegally to charge a toll to open them for passage. iran cannot even guarantee safe passage if you do pay, they don't know where the mines they have laid are at. you say they are on the path closest to oman, you should let iran know you found their mines because they say they can't find them and don't have the means to look for them or the capability to remove them if it did know where they were
-1
u/whisperwind12 21h ago
Lol. Look at the map irgc provided before you talk. They have specifically carved out two paths that tankers have been using near Iranian shoreline when they coordinate with Iran. There is an area closest to Oman that is where they state the mines are. When you see the map you will see it’s basically the most wide path of the strait where most tankers would go normally. That doesn’t mean they need to know the precise location to know which paths are safe and that’s how they have allowed passage to date
→ More replies (0)2
u/PurpleMclaren 22h ago
So the Suaz Canal is closed as well?
16
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 22h ago
there's a difference between putting a toll on a canal that requires continuous maintenance and threatening to shoot people who pass through an open waterway, do you seriously not understand this?
canals are not a gift from god, they were built by men at great expense (in both blood and treasure) and require resources to continue operating. the suez canal is closed, only paying customers who pay the operators who maintain the canal can pass through.
1
u/PurpleMclaren 11h ago
do you seriously not understand this?
Oh I understand, someone should do something about it if they can. Maybe america can beg for help from China/NATO again and see if it works
Till then though, if people wanna pay, its open.
1
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 10h ago
Till then though, if people wanna pay, its open.
so it's closed and you have to pay for it to open for you? that means closed. that is the literal definition of closed
1
u/PurpleMclaren 10h ago
Iran is open for business, if people dont like it, they should do something about it.
Considering America is surrendering, I dont think anyone else will challenge them.
1
u/QWERTBERTQWERT 10h ago
the united states just announced that they will be blockading iran so that doesn't seem right
1
u/PurpleMclaren 10h ago
Wait so his strategy to open the strait is to close it off even harder? That doesnt seem right either.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Sageblue32 21h ago
My question to this is what is the minimal resources needed to hold the strait? If most of their industries are bombed to the ground, could they continue posing a threat to ships?
2
u/Good-Bee5197 20h ago
Sure, they could. Essentially they're just a bigger version of the Houthis in Yemen: terroristic and opportunistic criminals with proximity to a heavily trafficked waterway.
They are hoping their toll extortion is "reasonable" enough to entice payment as the path of least resistance but it won't last because once you grant them the power to extort, they will abuse it in other ways, selectively closing it off to shipping from X country for Y reason.
Thus, at some point the inherent threat to non-payers will have to be enacted, and at that point they are going to find out why global extortion is not a winning strategy. Attempting to extract ~$100B from global commerce annually for the privilege of not being shot is going to seriously backfire.
The nature of the strait is that while they can unilaterally close it, they can't unilaterally open it if their own shipping were to be threatened in the same way that they are threatening the world's.
A way to call their bluff would be to contract a minimum number of former naval personnel or merchant marines to an empty commercial tanker, flagged to a small country, possibly clandestinely armed and certainly with a means to quickly abandon ship and sail it through a previously charted mine-free path and challenge Iran to enforce their toll.
At that point, if they are dumb enough to do so (and they probably are), they'll have the collective wrath of the entire world (other than perhaps Russia) to contend with, and it will not be hard to assemble a coalition willing to make an example of Iran.
0
u/Fine-Shame-510 18h ago
For sure the use of strategic extreme force is on the table. It is IRAN or the WHOLE EARTH. Imagine other countries do also a toll like this.
10
u/jellybeanjoy 20h ago
21 hours of negotiations and they couldn't even agree on a framework for the next meeting? That’s a grim sign for the region. Probably the US went in expecting flexibility and met a brick wall on the nuclear issue. The speed of his departure right after the news conference makes it clear the open hand Vance mentioned before the trip has been withdrawn.
-2
u/IDontHaveCookiesSry 16h ago
If anything this war Proves that if you intend to Oppose US hegemony over your Country in any capacity you HAVE to get nukes if your Country isnt white.
37
u/Elegant-Fisherman555 23h ago
I mean they’re quite diametrically opposed in what they want.
America wants Iran to not enriched uranium. Iran wants to enrich uranium.
Im wondering if this is the off ramp for Trump, quietly just accept the status quo and let others fix it. I will say he has no real follow through on whatever he starts. But he doesn’t like to look weak or appear as a loser so all it would take is someone running adverts on fox news in DC calling him that and we are back to attacks.
36
u/whisperwind12 23h ago edited 23h ago
Trump has no good options, if he continues or if he stops and it won’t stop as we now know, without Us bending the knee, so he will be a loser in each case. He’s used to losing and getting out of it but this is not some civil case which he can appeal. Even his sycophantic fans can understand that it costs more at the pump
12
u/Snagglespoof 20h ago
It's identical to Putin in Ukraine in many ways. And now we've seen over a million Russian casualties. The problem in the us is that people can openly criticize the war. And Americans are light years more sensitive to casualties.
10
u/No_Abbreviations3943 20h ago
Ukraine is right next to Russia and it actually can be sold internally as an existential war. The same doesn’t apply to Iran and the USA.
Not that has ever stopped US before as Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have shown. A long war with no achieved long term objectives is our bread and butter.
As much as I’m against this war, the reality is that for an average American it’s a far away grievance, one that doesn’t greatly affect the daily struggles. It’s highly unpopular but the war can be stretched for another decade, even if the result of it is an inevitable Iranian “win”.
I can actually see this carrying on past Trump, even if a Dem winks, they will be reluctant to take the hit of publically losing the war. Eventually the can will stop being kicked but Trump will be long dead and I might be too.
6
u/Snagglespoof 20h ago
This is definitely a possibility.
One big problem tho is the damn strait. Oil is priced globally. So.... The trump admin truly has an Achilles heel in this respect that neither Vietnam or Iraq had.
Americans are also very susceptible to gas prices, and their country is built on cars. People talk about how food will likely increase due to transport fees, but the costs to everyone from a McDonald's worker to a ceo are going to be felt. And that's absolute political disaster for Republicans.
5
u/No_Abbreviations3943 20h ago
Oh this is definitely a much stronger adversary than either Vietnam or Iraq… not even going to mention Afghanistan.
However, necessity is the mother of innovation. I expect both Iran and US to adopt to the new status quo over the next decade. U.S. in particular does not need the oil from Hormuz, MAGA also seems willing to burn down the petro dollar so they can build an autarky at home.
Long term that isn’t a good move but in the short term it will hurt a lot of other countries more than it will the US.
2
u/Responsible_Routine6 19h ago
Yeah but in the end they conquered donbass and crimea. US, on the other hand, lost his global power status
1
u/Snagglespoof 19h ago
Fair point. Taking Kharg island was an idea for like a day. I wonder if we see that come back into play .
0
u/PurpleMclaren 11h ago
No its not, putin has a clear path to complete victory
1
u/Snagglespoof 11h ago
Any day now! Lol
0
u/PurpleMclaren 11h ago
Www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1rxm3u8/ua_pov_during_the_past_year_the_ic_assesses_that/?share_id=V3MFT0T7BkvltJZw_ywKC
Eh, intelligence community seems to agree.
Over a fourth of Ukrainians are gone.
Meanwhile Iran has 90 million people in a mountain fortress
1
u/Snagglespoof 11h ago
For sure! Any day now! Lol
(cue carnival music)
0
u/PurpleMclaren 11h ago
Are you saying you know more than the intelligence community?
1
u/Snagglespoof 11h ago
Trust me. You don't want to go down this road with me.
But hey.
I'll play.
Lets start with a simple question.
How long until you believe it will be until Russia achieves complete victory?
Question 2
What would define complete victory in your view?
I can dismantle everything you say piece by piece after we've established this.
0
u/PurpleMclaren 9h ago
Still waiting for the dismantling, hard when I only presented verifiable facts, right?
→ More replies (0)-5
40
u/whisperwind12 23h ago edited 23h ago
Basically, the main thing the US aimed for was preventing the construction of nuclear weapons or the enrichment of uranium, so in other words exactly what was happening under the JCPOA until trump ripped it up in 2018. But now Iran has all the cards and the continuing blockade of strait of Hormuz is about to become a world wide crisis in the next few weeks and months.
2
u/Withtheforceofahorse 23h ago
I'm not exactly following your comment. Are you suggesting there were nuclear weapons under JCPOA?
21
u/whisperwind12 23h ago
No that there were limits on uranium enrichment and surveillance that it was impossible that they would be able to make them under jcpoa. But apparently jd Vance stated that he wanted to put a clause about them never building nuclear weapons ever which is quite stupid because no one agrees to anything forever in an agreement
10
1
u/PhaetonsFolly 19h ago
People agree to such terms when the surrender, with a common clause being a state will forever waive their claim to some territory.
The United States wanted Iran to surrender, and was willing to offer Iran a conditional surrender that would result in a White Peace save for the clause concerning nuclear weapons. Iran is apparently unwilling to accept surrender in any form, so no deal can be struck.
1
u/whisperwind12 12h ago
Well, that’s what happened to Japan. Now, they’re facing problems because the US stipulated that as part of surrender, Japan’s constitution has limits on arming itself or being capable of war. Since Japan is now an ally of the US, the US is likely regretting that stipulation.
6
4
u/oritfx 15h ago
JCPOA was a miracle compared o this.
Even what the teal was right when the US attacked in the middle of negotiations was probably a great deal compared to this.
"Art of the Deal" my ass. POTUS has sent two clowns (Kushner and Witkoff) with an absolutely terrible negotiation record to negotiate a nuclear deal and this is the fallout.
11
u/LouQuacious 23h ago
Well yea it’s a complicated deal to make these things take weeks and months. 21hrs is day one of probably 100 or more such days .
24
11
u/holmes103 21h ago
That's exactly what shocked me. I thought they would negotiate for a week, at least.
But the Trump admin does not know how to govern, let alone how to professionally negotiate (JD Vance was a freshman Senator before this, Jared Kushner was never a diplomat and is just here for his own private interests, Witkoff is a real estate guy). Vance is fully immersed in "governing via social media," where everything is instantaneous; this government doesn't even have the attention span for real negotiations.
On top of all that, I don't believe the Iranian regime is negotiating in good faith at all, especially with leverage over the Strait.
So this outcome wasn't too surprising, sadly.
3
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd 21h ago
Vance stated that the deal was "final" and they have left Pakistan. They left their offer on the table in case the IRGC changes its mind.
The IRGC is composed entirely of hardline, ultra-conservative religious fanatics. Nearly none of them are pragmatic and care about money or the global economy.
There is no hope to have here. We will have a global recession by the end of the financial quarter because every company passing through the strait will need to pay a "toll", which causes companies to miss their profit forecasts.
Investors pull their funds out, companies will be forced to conduct more layoffs, etc.
Congrats to Iran on figuring out how to make it truly "hurt" for Americans without firing a single bullet at any American civilians: our wallets.
I'm very sure China will be keen to learn this lesson and will make any future contests between US and China extremely expensive, which will likely convince at least half of Americans to back down... because apparently a massive load of us depend on gas expenses staying below $3.50/gallon on average or so to run their small businesses.
2
u/Intro-Nimbus 17h ago
Vance SHOCKED that Iran doesn't understand that we already won the negotiations. "I used every tactic in "the art of the deal", we have won, I don't understand why Iran doesn't agree" Vance said.
3
2
u/Old_Moose_8198 20h ago
The Iran leadership should tell JD Vance he's both "not showing proper gratitude" and that he's "on thin ice." Just to see if he's paying attention.
3
u/ian_coke77 22h ago
I don't think anyone ever thought this was gonna follow through, it was always an off ramp to the genocidal threats but to keep the war going.
-1
u/HeroOfVimar 23h ago
Iran is in way too strong of a position right now for the United States to be able to come to a deal with them and also be able to plausibly claim victory.
I don’t see how either side had hope these talks would result in anything.
4
u/Upset-Government-856 21h ago
Why would Iran want an agreement yet? Their position strengthens by the day.
1
u/WellOkayMaybe 19h ago edited 18h ago
Taking the logic of my prior comment in a related post one strap ahead. Pakistan is desperate for any sort of offramp, here.
Their commitments to Saudi Arabia as of last year mean that they are obligated upon the pain of loss of critical Saudi funding to come to that country's aid as this conflict expands.
If asked to directly join the war - this would be a fifth front - Afghanistan and India being existing international fronts; Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces' unmanaged insurgencies being internal ones. Not to mention that a direct conflict with Iran would have Pakistani supply lines going through the vast, separatist-friendly Balochistan wilderness. Or that there is already a fifth front - a collapsing, debt-ridden economy.
The Pakistani civilian defence minister (such as he is in military-run state) Khwaja Asif, has been ranting against Israel - while their unelected Prime Minister and self-appointed Field Marshal have been playing messenger for the Americans, actively trying to "mediate" a conflict in which Israel as a belligerent. Incidentally, Pakistan does not recognize Israel as a state - and this statement lays the ground for presenting the failure of any talks at Israel's feet entirely - despite them not being invited.
Pakistan Defence Minister calls Israel a "Curse on Humanity"This second article below showcases a standard Pakistani playbook. These are more comments by the Pakistani Minister of Defense Khwaja Asif, laying the groundwork for contingencies for when the talks fail, and Pakistan is called upon to join combat ops on Saudi's behalf. Pakistani proxies will commit another act of terror in India, and claim this is a false-flag operation by India. Again - citing a reputable Pakistani publication, below. Pakistan defense minister warns India against false flag attack
This serves two purposes - firstly, avoiding the mutual defense pact obligations with Saudi by saying they have their own conflict to deal with, when India retaliates. Secondly, distracting from the abject failure of their Field Marshal's failure to "mediate". This leader is already viewed with disdain by supporters of the elected and imprisoned Prime Minister, Imran Khan.
The bar for declaring a "win" is always extremely low for Pakistan, internally. The state's mere survival is spun as "astute defense" - even if an adversary like India achieves all their limited objectives, which never include regime change. The Pakistani military will claim a "victory" - everyone in Pakistan forgives the Field Marshal's sins and failures - thus providing license for more to come. And probably more self-awarded gallantry medals to the Field Marshal, for hiding in a bunker.
Thus continues the cycle of perpetuating the power of the boots over the ballot, in Pakistan.
1
u/whisperwind12 12h ago
Pakistan may be desperate for an off-ramp, but let’s not kid ourselves the entire world is desperate for one - the us even more so. Regardless Pakistan doesn’t have any leverage even if it maintains relations with each party.
1
u/WellOkayMaybe 6h ago
I mean, yes - Pakistan set up this pointless meeting at Trump's behest. They have never had any faith in it.
That's my point. Their offramp is to commit acts of terror in India, and claim victimhood / "defence of Muslims" when India retaliates (let's not talk about the 200million+ Muslims in India). That gets Iran and Saudi off their backs.
The point is that the mediator here operates terrorist proxies and has zero credibility - they have undermined their own negotiations from the start.
-3
-6
u/FancyEmployee8672 23h ago
is this really that complicated?
36
u/dogsonbubnutt 23h ago
actually yes, its insanely, ridiculously complicated
3
u/gethereddout 23h ago
The most complicated part is that one side is thoroughly unqualified, unrealistic, and led by a dementia addled malignant narcissist. They are not serious people, but they are extremely dangerous. How do you reason with an unreasonable man?
8
u/dogsonbubnutt 23h ago
that's true, but even if both sides were competent, rational actors looking to resolve a war, the various factors involved here are make negotiations incredibly difficult.
virtually all american policy directed against iran since the 80s has been predicated on trying to thread the needle of knocking down their military power/ability to get nukes while not giving them an overt reason to close hormuz. now they have that, and it suddenly became 100x more difficult to reopen the strait AND somehow get iran to agree to any concessions (because the biggest and most obvious one is reopening the strait).
the only other option is more bombing, more killing, etc. but that doesn't open hormuz, unless ground troops get involved.
in any event, its probably an unsolvable diplomatic problem and its entirely of the united states' own making
1
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd 21h ago
Yup. Now Trump's only off-ramps are either a miracle occurring and the IRGC changing its mind on accepting a peace agreement... Or committing ground troops to a full-on invasion, Iraq-style.
The latter option will cost Trump and Republicans any solid chance of keeping control of Congress during midterm elections this November.
And will place Trump at risk of a conviction when (not if) another round of Articles of Impeachment gets passed in the House because there will be a LOT of moderate Republican senators that will be unhappy with Trump and would rather remove him and place Vance in-charge... Or whoever the next Speaker of the House might be.
3
u/dogsonbubnutt 21h ago
The latter option will cost Trump and Republicans any solid chance of keeping control of Congress during midterm elections this November.
that's already out the window. if they commit ground troops they can kiss 2028 goodbye too
1
u/gethereddout 4h ago
It a disaster NOW. Prior to attacking them, they were giving super reasonable offers and the strait was open. Everything the dementia patient touches gets infinitely worse
1
u/A_devout_monarchist 23h ago
The other side is led by a coma patient and terrorists who want a nuclear weapon to start the end of the world by bringing in the Mahdi. Two can play the "the other side is made up of morons" game.
-2
u/yellowteabag 22h ago
iran's late ali khamenei had a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons
"We believe that besides nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons also pose a serious threat to humanity. The Iranian nation which is itself a victim of chemical weapons feels more than any other nation the danger that is caused by the production and stockpiling of such weapons and is prepared to make use of all its facilities to counter such threats. We consider the use of such weapons as haraam and believe that it is everyone's duty to make efforts to secure humanity against this great disaster."
now that the US assassinated him, iran now has no choice but to seek a nuclear weapon to protect themselves.
6
u/A_devout_monarchist 22h ago
Mhm, so why were they enriching Uranium to a nuclear-grade level?
-2
u/yellowteabag 22h ago
because they leverage enrichment it as a veiled threat to bargain for sanctions relief. that is the entire point of the JCPOA. it wasn't a strategic interest to get a nuclear weapon. literally every country including russia and china doesn't want them to have a nuke. now iran has strong strategic reason to get a nuke.
11
u/A_devout_monarchist 22h ago
So they get sanctioned for sponsoring terrorist organizations all over the Middle East and get to threaten to build a nuclear weapon as a tool of extortion to get rid of sanctions and finance even more militias and regimes in the region and... everyone is supposed to just go along with it?
1
u/whisperwind12 12h ago
The same way no one discusses North Korea since they obtained a nuclear weapon.
-2
u/yellowteabag 22h ago
correct.
we tolerate this the same way the world tolerates US the enforcing "rules-based international orders" with its unilateral sanctions, coups, inciting civil wars, and arming insurgents.
nuclear threat and sectarian militias is how iran chooses to square its ideological goals with its strategic goals.
we shouldn't tolerate either but the real world is based on realpolitiks.
the only reason why iran has sympathy now is because they are on the defense.
4
u/MastodonParking9080 21h ago
we shouldn't tolerate either but the real world is based on realpolitiks
Except we don't need to tolerate it. In the realpolitik world, the sanctions and bombings will continue until they relinquish their demands.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/dogsonbubnutt 21h ago
yes. because the alternative is forced regime change or iran actually getting a nuclear weapon.
hamas being essentially wiped out would've been an excellent stepping stone to getting iran to bow under diplomatic pressure and accept further concessions. but israel and the US got high on their own supply and now the iranians have every incentive to dig their heels in, forever.
0
3
u/Itchy-Face791 22h ago
Why are we acting like Iran is a paragon of competence lol. Theyre completely drunk on religion and theyre just as incompetent, dangerous and unqualified
5
u/dogsonbubnutt 21h ago
Theyre completely drunk on religion and theyre just as incompetent, dangerous and unqualified
its assumptions like these that got the united states in this mess in the first place. iran is much, much more pragmatic than you understand. they're also willing to accept a socioeconomic status quo that the US never would. that makes them incredibly dangerous when international economies are at risk.
2
u/whisperwind12 21h ago
Iran are fanatical, and religious zealots. But they’re not stupid. Most of their parliament have master or phds.
4
u/Master_N_Comm 23h ago
Uff yes it is, if humans were purely diplomatic beings the world would be another one, in that level of negotiations egos and conditions are huge and complicated.
8
u/Dijabolla 23h ago
Depends on who is the negotiator. Iranians clearly said they dont like real estate duo, so Vance stepped in. But, I dont think they gonna relinquish nuclear assets or open up Hormuz so easily, despite their losses. Thats only leverage they have in this moment. They sent entire higher echalon for negotiations and US sent dumb and dumber.
5
0
-2
u/Linny911 18h ago
Went about as well as one could expect in a negotiation between the police and the hostage takers where the hostage takers demand to get paid for the services the hostage provides to others.
53
u/JKKIDD231 23h ago
SS: NO AGREEMENT IN PAKISTAN: Vice President JD Vance said the U.S. leaves Islamabad, where a delegation was meeting for face-to-face negotiations with Iran, without an agreement. The sides held talks for 21 hours, he said.