Presuming you are referring to me, I’ll play along.
China and Iran have been in negotiations for Iran to acquire hypersonic anti ship missiles. Iran has been hot to sink one of our ships hopefully a carrier. Lacking the appropriate systems to presently do this by giving them a “deal” allows them to stall, delay and play along until it becomes a reality. Appeasement never will work with them. We draw down our forces and in a year we are back at the same stalemate, but at greater risk to us. You have them with your boot on their throat. Also there are the lives of the 40,000 Iranians who already have paid the price of appeasement. With whom in a fractured government are you even negotiating with?
I wish I had more information.
The world has had 47 years of dealing with Iran.
Anybody confident in the ability to trust them to honor this?
Did not work out so well for the last guy who got off of a plane waving around a signed agreement.

quote:

Originally posted by heydrich: Presuming you are referring to me, I’ll play along.

Don't do that. Don't be coy with me. You know damn well I'm addressing you.

quote:

Did not work out so well for the last guy who got off of a plane waving around a signed agreement.

Smarmy, disingenuous horse shit. Was England under Chamberlain stomping the shit out of Germany when he waved that paper? Was England threatening to inflict more damage (and could really do so) on Germany if they did not agree to terms? Did England have the upper hand against Germany at that time? Twenty years before Munich, Europe had fought the greatest war in world history, and wanted only one thing: to avoid another war, and its leaders deluded themselves in order to try to achieve that goal.

I'm just surprised it took this long for this obvious cop-out sorry excuse to show up in this thread. So lame. Cheap, and disappointingly so.

quote:

China and Iran have been in negotiations for Iran to acquire hypersonic anti ship missiles. Iran has been hot to sink one of our ships hopefully a carrier.

Yeah, this is at least the second time you've made this claim. You behave as if you have a greater understanding of circumstances surrounding this conflict, yet you seem to be oblivious to the implications of a foreign power supplying weapons to Iran which would result in the sinking of an American aircraft carrier. Ain't gonna happen.

quote:

Anybody confident in the ability to trust them to honor this?

Are you reading the comments in this thread? If you were, you wouldn't have to ask that question, and you would know that there is value in reaching an agreement at this time, even when, ultimately, the Iranian regime behaves the way they always behave.

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that "finishing them" would mean a ground invasion, with the attendant loss of American lives, but oh, "40,000 Iranians". Sure, got it. You'd better make preparations to go in yourself, since you so casually dismiss the reality of what you suggest. How you can not know that the American people would not tolerate a ground war in Iran, is beyond me.

We're dealing in reality here. Perhaps that's just not for you.

I never said anything about a ground invasion.
Still plenty of targets left to bomb.
Let’s see what happens when all the facts are known.
I’m hoping for the best.

quote:

Originally posted by heydrich:
I never said anything about a ground invasion.

Well, at this point, it's apparent that's what it would take to "finish them". Disregarding this, is fantasy.

quote:

I’m hoping for the best.

Yeah, sure thing.

Troubling reporting from Lee Smith - a journalist that Trump often praises and is not what I would consider part of the leftwing media.

"Less than three months ago Donald Trump was mocking the 2015 deal Barack Obama made with Iran that cleared the regime’s path to a nuclear bomb. “They sent Boeing 757s over there, loaded with cash, hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Trump, referring to the cash ransom Obama aides delivered directly to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, or IRGC, to bribe the Iranians to agree to the phony deal. “That’s not going to happen with Trump.”

And yet it seems that’s exactly what’s happening with Trump. According to reports Friday, the United Arab Emirates, a key U.S. regional ally, is making $20 billion of frozen Iranian assets available to the Islamic Republic, with $3 billion of it having already been delivered to Tehran, perhaps by a Boeing 757, and maybe even on wooden pallets like those Obama stacked with cash to pay the terror state. Emirati officials deny that they’re buying off Iran on behalf of the U.S., but if Abu Dhabi thought Trump was going to put the clerical regime down for the count, they wouldn’t be giving money to a neighbor that since March has set fire to high-end real estate properties with hundreds of missile and drone attacks. Instead, the Emiratis are paying tribute to the side that looks like a winner.

Thus it seems that what Trump has frequently called the worst deal ever negotiated, and has identified for more than a decade as Exhibit A in the case against American loserdom, has now become the pattern of his own Iran policy. And like Obama’s, the plan is to gorge the IRGC with money and pave the way to a nuclear bomb while restraining Israel from responding to missile attacks by Iran and its proxies for the sake of what it euphemistically calls regional order."

Link to Full Article

And here's another one who seems to always be pessimistic on this issue. ChicagoSigMan

quote:

And yet it seems that’s exactly what’s happening with Trump.

No, it is not, and if you want to take the position that it is, you're not worth taking seriously on this conflict.

You and this reporter must think Donald Trump is a fool.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". With no regard for the USA, the left loves anyone who opposes DJT. It has been a constant effort to undermine our country's effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear and terrorism threats, because they see it only in the context of bringing down Trump.

There has been a continuous stream of reports that Trump is making bad deals, doing something he criticized Obama for, that he is naive wrt Iranian motives, he chickened out, etc. It is all about Trump, and based in lies and innuendo.

It is a propaganda campaign to bolster TDS and to sow doubt about Trump in weak minds.

It seems quite different than the Vietnam era anti-war protests, which weren't so much about the Presidents, one D and one R, as they were about the human costs of that war without discernible benefits.

quote:

Anybody confident in the ability to trust them to honor this?

Social media is full of comments like this, leaving me to wonder, what do you think we should do then? Just fukkin nuke Iran and be done with it? What exactly do you want?

It’s Sunday evening in the Middle East. What happened to the signing of the Peace Deal?

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:

quote:

Anybody confident in the ability to trust them to honor this?

Social media is full of comments like this, leaving me to wonder, what do you think we should do then? Just fukkin nuke Iran and be done with it? What exactly do you want?

The idea of nuking Iran is something that has never been brought up by people of rational minds nor should EVER be considered.
What exactly do I want?
The total destruction of the IRCG and the Iranian people to be liberated from their rule.
I voted for Trump ever time he was on the ballot.
Most of the time I'm in lockstep with his leadership.
What is his plan for dealing with the IRCG?
That is all I'm asking.
If me asking this question makes me a villain on the site, so be it!

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
It’s Sunday evening in the Middle East. What happened to the signing of the Peace Deal?

Hezbollah attacked Israel with three unmanned aerial vehicles launched from Lebanon.

Israel responded by bombing a Hezbollah command center in Beirut's Dahieh suburb.

Israel now is awaiting Iran to retaliate with ballistic missile fire against Israel.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428620

quote:

What exactly do I want?
The total destruction of the IRCG and the Iranian people to be liberated from their rule.

Fair enough. What would that look like? How would that be achieved?

quote:

Originally posted by heydrich:
The idea of nuking Iran is something that has never been brought up by people of rational minds nor should EVER be considered.
What exactly do I want?
The total destruction of the IRCG and the Iranian people to be liberated from their rule.

You ain't going to achieve regime change by just air assault with conventional missiles. The only way to that would be a ground war, and you know it. But you mentioned above that you "never said anything about ground invasion". So, you're all gung-ho and want to totally destroy the IRGC? Tell us the plan, then. YOUR strategy.

quote:

What is his plan for dealing with the IRCG?
That is all I'm asking.

Iran's nuclear weapon ambition has been set back years. Their miltary has been decimated. So, even if he doesn't do anything with them, it's still a win.
Again I ask, give us your strategy of totally destroying the IRGC, since that's all you're asking.

quote:

If me asking this question makes me a villain on the site, so be it!

"Woe is me. I'm the villain on the site. Look at me". Man, that tactic is reserved for children.

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Hezbollah attacked Israel with three unmanned aerial vehicles launched from Lebanon.

Israel responded by bombing a Hezbollah command center in Beirut's Dahieh suburb.

Israel now is awaiting Iran to retaliate with ballistic missile fire against Israel.

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428620

Are you trying to tell me few back and forth between these two is the reason the signing is held up? They've been going at it for a while now. Not any new revelation. And they will still be going at it after the Deal is signed, whenever that is.

Even the discussion of “deal signing” in the last couple of days has stirred up animosities within the regime between the hardliners opposing any deal and others who are more pragmatic and willing to at least consider the possibility. Getting the regime to internally fight itself would be one approach. Since Hezbollah and Israel have now started going at it again, deal making is likely on the back burner until things calm down a bit.

Eliminating Iran’s ability to generate income would be the approach on the table.

They want to block the Straits, go for it. Pipelines are being built to shift export away from the Straits.

Whatever “deal” made has to have the stipulation that if breached, Kharg Island and other oil export/production areas will be targeted.

I could care less about Iran, and ground troops don’t need to be in place to cripple them. Prevent them from accessing funds (via oil exports, which constitute 80% of their export revenues).

They will renege on this deal anyway, so we have to be prepared with the hammer.

Read 'Going to Tehran', Flynt Leverett & Hillary Mann Leverett copyright 2013.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Iran's nuclear weapon ambition has been set back years. Their miltary has been decimated. So, even if he doesn't do anything with them, it's still a win.

It is amazing certain people cannot or refuse to comprehend this.

https://www.newsmax.com/world/...dkt_nbr=010504kztpe1

Trump Warns Israel and Iran Not to 'Blow' Peace Deal With Military Strikes

President Donald Trump on Sunday urged no further attacks by anyone after Israel's military said it launched strikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut, potentially complicating efforts to finalize a deal to end the U.S.-Iran war. Smoke rose over the Lebanese capital, and the Civil Defense said it retrieved three bodies and six wounded people from the rubble.
Iran threatened a military response. Trump reacted on social media: “We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region,” and “Let’s not blow it!”

The deal in its current form is a deep disappointment to Israel's government, which has been sidelined in negotiations led by Pakistan and others. The last time Israel struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, it set off the most serious escalation of fighting between Iran and Israel since the tenuous ceasefire took hold April 7.

Trump, who had said the deal could be signed Sunday, has pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stop hitting Lebanon hard while a deal is near, but the prime minister has defied him.

Netanyahu's office said the strikes were in response to Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel. Israel’s military said Hezbollah launched three projectiles, releasing footage where an audible boom was followed by rising smoke. There was no immediate comment from the Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

“Israel will not tolerate firing into its territory,” Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a statement. The military later said it was preparing for potential incoming fire in the coming hours.

An Associated Press photographer at the scene in Beirut said a five-story apartment building with shops on the ground floor was struck. The two lowest floors were the most heavily damaged. Residents of the southern suburbs, many of whom had returned home after weeks of relative calm, could be seen fleeing.

Hezbollah fired missiles into Israel on March 2, two days after the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, sparking war in the Middle East. Israeli troops have since pushed their invasion of Lebanon deeper than at any point in over a quarter century.

Iran wants a ceasefire deal to include the fighting in Lebanon.

Iran’s parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, a lead negotiator for Tehran, warned the U.S. on X after Israel's strikes that “if you lack the will and ability to fulfill your commitments, speaking of continuing the path is not possible."

“Without a doubt, these crimes will not go unanswered,” said Gen. Mohammad Jafar Asadi, deputy commander of Iran’s Joint Command Headquarters, the official Mizan news agency reported.

Qatari mediators traveled to Tehran on Sunday to finalize the agreement, according to two regional officials.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, expressed cautious optimism that the U.S. and Iran were finally approaching a deal that could halt hostilities that have killed thousands of people and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, whose closure has thrown world markets into disarray.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Saturday the deal would be signed Sunday, while Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said it could happen in the coming days. Trump said the Strait of Hormuz would open immediately after the signing.

The deal is expected to be signed electronically, without an in-person ceremony, though it’s unclear when or how the signing will take place.

Iran's government warned that any division at home over the deal weakens its negotiating position, and those criticizing negotiators are taking aim at a national decision. Iranians must recognize that no war lasts forever, spokesperson Fatemeh Mohajerani told the state-run IRNA news agency.

The deal does not solve the thorniest issues between the U.S. and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear program or its billions of dollars in frozen funds, but offers a 60-day framework for technical discussions on those issues, according to Pakistani and regional officials familiar with the ongoing negotiations. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

The officials described Pakistan’s effort leading the negotiations, struggling for months to keep both sides from walking out on multiple occasions.

Under the deal being discussed, U.S. and Israel appear to have fallen short of their original goals of destroying Iran’s missile and nuclear programs and ending its support for armed proxies in the region. It is not clear how the deal will address these issues, or if they will be part of the final agreement.

Iran’s nuclear program and highly enriched uranium have long been at the center of tensions with the U.S. and Israel and an international source of concern. Trump on social media asserted Saturday that “when all is calm,” the U.S. would go in and “downblend and destroy” the enriched uranium in Iran or in the U.S.

Iran has 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium that is enriched up to 60% purity, a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels of 90%, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is peaceful and has not publicly committed to giving up the enriched uranium, which is believed to be buried under three nuclear sites that were badly damaged by U.S. strikes last year.

Critics in Trump’s Republican Party, struggling with an unpopular war ahead of the midterm elections, have criticized the emerging deal. Some said it did not improve on the terms of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal that Trump withdrew the U.S. from during his first term and which he still describes as “bad.”

Meanwhile, Trump was expected to discuss demining the Strait of Hormuz during the Group of Seven summit that starts Monday.