There is a way to end it, which is kill enough of the leaders in Iran so that whoever is left doesn't have the will to oppose the terms of surrender. It is no different than the Nazi or the Japanese military leadership in WWII. There were many hardline true-believers in those ranks. Even after the war ended they existed, but they no longer had power.

Yes, having regional allies is a good thing, but why are those potential allies not on board with defeating the Islamist leadership in Iran? Are they truly looking for the defeat of the Iranian government?

I would concede that some of those allies could be feeling that they need a bit of time to placate their own citizens, to not look like they support killing Muslims.

quote:

Trump has held off on the “Carthaginian finality” only because of the absolute negativity that would erupt worldwide. But in the end, that’ll be the way it’ll have to be to ensure radical Islamists never get a nuke.

It's more than gaining a nuke...
It's world domination and conquest.

The religious obligation at the heart of Islam is to conquer the world for Allah, and to incorporate it all into the great Islamic Umma. Only then will the world be at peace. Submission to Allah is the reason why the world was created.

How Europe Escaped Speaking Arabic
https://www.aei.org/articles/h...ped-speaking-arabic/

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Only then will the world be at peace.

Indeed, as stated as clearly as possible:

“I asked KSM [Islamic terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] one time how come, since his brand of Islam is so violent, he calls it the religion of peace. He told me that my problem was that I interpreted the word peace the way Americans always do. He explained that according to his brand of Islam, peace would exist when the entire world was under Sharia law and ruled by a Muslim caliphate. He said Islam is the religion of peace because its aim is to impose Sharia law everywhere and in doing so bring peace to the world.
“KSM said that to make peace with one’s enemies is to convert, subjugate, or enslave them.”

—James E. Mitchell, Enhanced Interrogation (New York: Crown Forum, 2016).

^^^ Yes. I used to think that was hyperbole. Unfortunately, it is not. About every 800 years or so the Christians have had to drive the Muslims out of Europe. I’m not sure we have the stomach to do it again.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:


I would concede that some of those allies could be feeling that they need a bit of time to placate their own citizens, to not look like they support killing Muslims.

Shiites and Sunnis be like "As long as you kill the right Muslims"

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
I would concede that some of those allies could be feeling that they need a bit of time to placate their own citizens, to not look like they support killing Muslims.

Shiites and Sunnis be like "As long as you kill the right Muslims"

And why put their own troops on the line and their own civilians at risk, when they've got the US and Israel to do the heavy lifting for them?

My opposition to “Kill ‘em all, let G*d sort them out!” is beginning to wane.

Repeatedly, it turns out, one can tell the Iranian government is lying easily:

‘Their lips are moving!”

I also have serious concerns about Pakistan being a neutral arbiter!

Rant over…

Do any of Israel's neighbors in the Middle East actually LIKE Israel and consider them friends and allies ? Or is it more like a sliding scale from abject murderous hatred, to don't walk on my lawn type of thing.

What could be some more accurate analogies to help me understand those relationships, and the other states that Iran is firing on, and why THOSE guys aren't teaming up with Israel if they have even half of a decent relationship ?

It's hard to understand as a westerner I admit, but I can understand better with analogies, up to and including the level of a kindergarten.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
I am stumped as to what the President is doing wasting time with the still have an arsenal of some sose liars, whose promises are meaningless. Unless he felt constrained by the 60 day conflict "rule" or we truly depleted too much of our weapons reserve, or we have done all we can do without either putting boots on the ground, or creating mass civilian casualties, I have no idea why he is doing this dance.

While I opposed this war from the beginning, I actually agree with the strategy being used now. It seems like the idea was to let Iran play its Strait of Hormuz card, give countries in the region time to respond by rerouting oil or pressuring Iran into a deal, and then permanently weaken Iran’s leverage once the Strait loses some of its strategic importance.

Assuming that’s the approach - it’s much better than putting boots on the ground, losing thousands of troops, and ending up in another Iraq 2.0 quagmire.

quote:

Originally posted by AirmanJeff:
It seems like the idea was to let Iran play its Strait of Hormuz card....
Assuming that’s the approach - it’s much better than putting boots on the ground, losing thousands of troops, and ending up in another Iraq 2.0 quagmire.

If that is the approach, and it works, I am all for it too.



.

I'm assuming all this putting things off is serving an important purpose, though I still don't understand what the advantage of doing so is at this point now even more. I think it might be too complex to put together in simple terms.

Allowing the Russians and the Chinese to feed target information to the Iranians about our bases and ships.

Time has come to tell Iran accept the US proposal or your oil production facilities will be bombed into dust. One one more missile or drone attack on a US ship or property and downtown Tehran's infrastructure will be lights out. Give them 5 days to think about the offer. Welcome Israel's air force to join the party.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
Do any of Israel's neighbors in the Middle East actually LIKE Israel and consider them friends and allies ? Or is it more like a sliding scale from abject murderous hatred, to don't walk on my lawn type of thing.

We got a glimpse with who's onboard with the Israelis in the original Abraham Accords the UAE and Bahrain were the first to sign-up. Both have serious petroleum reserves but, have also heavily invested in banking & tourism; they were the first ones to work out trade agreements and start up direct flights to/from Tel Aviv. Consider who has received the brunt of Iranian missile & drone attacks, UAE has gotten hit the most with over 2000 attacks, Bahrain has had nearly 300 similar incidents.

Saudi Arabia is close behind the former two countries as current Crown Prince MBS has also recognized his country needs to diversify its economy and not be solely invested in the petro-biz, their mega urban project Neom which is situated at the far north end of the Red Sea is reliant on normalized relations with Israel. All three recognize Israel as having a successful economy to which it's better to be friends than enemies.

Jordan's government gets along with Israel and interacts frequently but, its got a major Palestinian problem who loathes Jews & Israel; Lebanon is the same however their overall government is shot-through with Hezbollah/Palestinian's who've high-jacked Lebanese society. Egypt on the surface plays nice and maintains their side of the border however, they've been exposed over the last twenty-years of looking the other way and allowing the Muslim Bortherhood to help supply Gaza as a means to relive internal political pressure. Like Lebanon, their internal politics are a mess, big difference is they've got a large army that can be used against parts of the population.

https://www.newsmax.com/world/...dkt_nbr=010502cwnjrk

Trump Says Iran Deal '50/50' as Talks Near Critical Stage

President Donald Trump said Saturday he would likely decide by Sunday whether to resume military strikes against Iran or move forward with a proposed agreement aimed at ending the war, as U.S. and Iranian negotiators reviewed a Pakistan-mediated draft memorandum of understanding.

Trump told Axios he planned to meet later Saturday with advisers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, with Vice President JD Vance also expected to participate, to discuss Iran's latest response.

"It was a 'solid 50/50'" whether the U.S. would reach a "good" deal or instead "blow them to kingdom come," Trump told the outlet.

Trump also told CBS News that negotiators were "getting a lot closer" to finalizing an agreement between Washington and Tehran.

"Every day it gets better and better," Trump told CBS News in a phone interview.

"I will only sign a deal where we get everything we want," he added.

Two regional officials and a diplomat separately told The Associated Press that the United States and Iran were close to agreeing on a memorandum intended to halt the conflict, with a final decision potentially coming within 48 hours. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the negotiations publicly.

The draft memorandum emerged after another round of talks in Tehran involving Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir, who has taken on a key mediation role between Washington and Tehran.

Pakistan said Saturday there had been "encouraging progress toward a final understanding."

Sources familiar with the talks told CBS News the latest proposal includes a process to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the unfreezing of some Iranian assets held in foreign banks and a continuation of negotiations.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei described the proposal as a "framework agreement."

"We want this to include the main issues required for ending the imposed war and other issues of essential importance to us," Baghaei said, according to Iranian state TV. "Then, over a reasonable time span, between 30 to 60 days, details are discussed and ultimately a final agreement is reached."

Baghaei said the Strait of Hormuz was among the issues under discussion and acknowledged that negotiations with the U.S. had narrowed differences in recent days.

"Over the past week, the trend has been toward narrowing differences," he said. "We will have to wait and see what happens over the next three or four days."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also signaled potential movement in the negotiations during remarks to reporters in India.

"There's been some progress made," Rubio said, adding that "there may be news later today."

Rubio later added: "There is a chance that, whether it's later today, tomorrow, in a couple days, we may have something to say, but this issue needs to be solved, as the president said, one way or another."

Rubio reiterated that Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and must surrender its enriched uranium stockpile, while also insisting the Strait of Hormuz be reopened fully "without tolls."

Trump told CBS News he believed any final agreement would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and ensure its enriched uranium was "satisfactorily handled."

Trump also told Axios that any final deal would need to address uranium enrichment and the fate of Iran's existing nuclear material, though officials familiar with the negotiations said those issues were unlikely to be fully resolved in the preliminary memorandum itself.

Under the proposal now under discussion, the U.S. and Iran would first agree to end hostilities and then enter a 30-day negotiating period to address more detailed disputes.

"I think one of two things will happen: either I hit them harder than they have ever been hit, or we are going to sign a deal that is good," Trump told Axios.

Trump warned CBS News that if negotiations fail, "we're going to have a situation where no country will ever be hit as hard as they're about to be hit."

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf warned Saturday that any renewed U.S. attacks would produce consequences "more crushing and more bitter" than at the beginning of the war.

The conflict began Feb. 28 after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran disrupted ongoing negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Iran later retaliated by effectively shutting the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global oil, natural gas and fertilizer shipments.

The U.S. subsequently imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports. U.S. Central Command said Saturday that American forces had turned away more than 100 commercial vessels and disabled four ships since the blockade began April 13.

Munir also met Saturday with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, President Masoud Pezeshkian and other senior Iranian officials as Pakistan continued efforts to arrange another round of direct talks.

Trump: Final details of Iran deal to be announced shortly

US President Donald Trump says Strait of Hormuz to be reopened after 'very good' calls with Arab leaders, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/427480

US President Donald Trump on Saturday night announced that the final details of an impending agreement with Iran would be announced "shortly."

In a post on his Truth Social social media website, Trump wrote, "I am in the Oval Office at the White House where we just had a very good call with President Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, of The United Arab Emirates, Emir Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, and Minister Ali al-Thawadi, of Qatar, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir Ahmed Shah, of Pakistan, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of Türkiye, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, of Egypt, King Abdullah II, of Jordan, and King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, of Bahrain, concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran, and all things related to a Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to PEACE."

"An Agreement has been largely negotiated, subject to finalization between the United States of America, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the various other Countries, as listed. Separately, I had a call with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, of Israel, which, likewise, went very well.

"Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly. In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Reuters reported that the plan would include three stages: the official end of the war, resolving the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, and opening a 30-day window for negotiations on a broader agreement, with the option to extend the window.

An official reportedly told the Saudi Al Hadath that the declaration will be made in "a few hours."

A source close to the negotiations told The Washington Times that the US and Iran are expected to announce the finalization of an agreement by Sunday afternoon. According to the source, a draft proposal was agreed to early Saturday, and was expected to be announced within 24 hours.

Top negotiators on both sides have approved the draft, and it awaits only the leaders' final approval, the report added.

The White House did not comment on the Times report.

Al Jazeera reported, citing an Iranian source, that “the memorandum of understanding includes ending the war, lifting the siege, opening the Strait of Hormuz, and the withdrawal of American forces from the war zone. The memorandum of understanding does not include nuclear issues because they are complex and require time for negotiations. Thirty days after the agreement, the door can be opened to nuclear negotiations."

Meanwhile, Trump told Axios that it was a "solid 50/50" as to whether a "good" deal could be made, adding, "I think one of two things will happen: either I hit them harder than they have ever been hit, or we are going to sign a deal that is good."

Trump also said that he does not think Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "worried" that the US would sign a bad deal, reiterating his promise that any deal will include nuclear enrichment and Iran's stockpile of highly-enriched uranium.

And that is how you negotiate. No pallets of cash and no more nukes. While the war was already won in the first three days, this is icing on the cake. I'm sure CNN is already spinning this as a loas.

I'd call it a loss, I don't see any mention of nuclear materials, intermediate or long range missiles, or a resolution to the issues in the strait.

Based on the article as written we remove the threat of attack and the will negotiate at some point in the future for the things that we went to war over.

Once those ships turn around they are not going back. Now was our chance to strike a deal or destroy all remaining capabilities and we didn't do either. We could have flown that mission accomplished banner 6 weeks ago.

Mike Pompeo does not seem to be a fan of the new deal. He posted this on his X Profile today. Even General Keene today was more on the time to light them up bandwagon.

"The deal being floated with Iran seems straight out of the Wendy Sherman-Robert Malley-Ben Rhodes playbook: Pay the IRGC to build a WMD program and terrorize the world," Pompeo wrote, naming three Obama administration officials closely associated with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

"Not remotely America First," Pompeo added.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
The memorandum of understanding does not include nuclear issues because they are complex and require time for negotiations. Thirty days after the agreement, the door can be opened to nuclear negotiations.

WTF? Is this not the whole reason this war was begun?