US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/07/trump-iran-war-ceasefire

by g-b-r • 4 months ago

605 1367 4 months ago

theguardian.com

https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-war-live-tehran-rejects-c...

g-b-r• 4 months ago

Two weeks who would have guessed xD

commiepatrol• 4 months ago

Came here to say this

Computer02• 4 months ago

A thread documenting a market reaction just before the announcement: https://www.reddit.com/r/PrepperIntel/comments/1sf8u1e/iran_...

underdeserver• 4 months ago

Thank goodness. Let's hope some peace and quiet comes out of this.

saladdays• 4 months ago

What is even the point of all the flip flopping if there’s ongoing talks? I feel like the doesn’t put any real pressure on Iran, but I may be uninformed.

zb3• 4 months ago

Market manipulation..

rasz2• 4 months ago

There are no talks.

le-mark2• 4 months ago

Trump is cornered. There is no “winning” this for him. Expect Iran to get some major concessions that Trump will talk up as win.

loloquwowndueo3• 4 months ago

All he does is flip flop. Was the same with tariffs against everyone last year - he kept backing off at the last moment.

joshgachnang• 4 months ago

Amusing that it's on a Tuesday again. TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) Tuesday.

Eufrat2• 4 months ago

There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.

I mean, as much as I don’t like the Iranian government, put yourselves in their position. You have the US and Israel literally leveling the equivalent of Balfour or the White House and taking out other government officials in a decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates. The government is then replaced by hardliners who see this attack as existential. You have little to lose at this point, so you go for broke.

Since the US seems unwilling to put boots on the ground, cannot form a coherent reason for any of this and is lead by a man who is unable to accept that he can commit errors, it degrades into a war of attrition and, in the case of Trump, influence peddling since it is clear that Israel and the Saudis would like to see Iran wiped off the map and all Trump cares about is how he can internalize it as yet another reason why he is a victim and entitled to the Nobel Peace Prize.

IMHO, I think there is tremendous pressure to, at the very least restore the Strait of Hormuz as an international waterway not subject to Iranian control or tolling, but that’s an after-the-fact thing. I think Trump simply thought it would be an easy win and play well on TV. I suspect what will happen is the US pays a massive indemnity/bribe to Iran, Iran agrees to not contest control of the Strait of Hormuz and the US looks like morons which Trump will internalize as a win that nobody will believe except himself.

dinkumthinkum2• 4 months ago

When you use words like "decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates," what do those words mean to you? With all due respect, I don't really get the Internet brain way of thinking of things. What decapitation failed? I guess, if you mean, there are still Islamic Revolution people in charge, I still can't see the point. When you say "failed" that would imply that they were literally attempting to kill literally every single member of the government at once. I don't think anyone serious would think that. Also, "failed?" I can't recall ever a decapitation happening so swiftly or so massively within the first few hours of a conflict. Also, the meat of what I wanted respond to was this idea of "killing the moderates." I get that most people here think the West and America is evil or whatever but the idea the Ayatollah and top members of the IRGC were moderate is just an affront to morality. The same people think that Trump is Hitler for doing things that 90s Democrats agreed with (even ones currently serving), would hold vigils for a truly monstrous regime. This is like some Billie Eilish "no one is illegal on stolen land" type stuff. We are talking about brutal executions for no reason at all.

ndiddy2• 4 months ago

There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner.

The Iranian Supreme National Security Council said in their victory statement that there would be talks starting on Friday: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/04/08/3560026/snsc-is...

Iran, while rejecting all the plans presented by the enemy, formulated a 10-point plan and presented it to the US side through Pakistan, emphasizing the fundamental points such as controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, which would grant Iran a unique economic and geopolitical position, the necessity of ending the war against all elements of the axis of resistance, which would mean the historic defeat of the aggression of the child-killing Israeli regime, the withdrawal of US combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region, the establishment of a safe transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz in a way that guarantees Iran's dominance according to the agreed protocol, full payment for the damages inflicted of Iran according to estimates, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions and resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, the release of all of Iran's frozen assets abroad, and finally the ratification of all of these matters in a binding Security Council resolution. It should be noted that the ratification of this resolution would turn all of these agreements into binding international law and would create an important diplomatic victory for the Iranian nation.
Now, the Honorable Prime Minister of Pakistan has informed Iran that the American side, despite all the apparent threats, has accepted these principles as the basis for negotiations and has surrendered to the will of the Iranian people.
Accordingly, it was decided at the highest level that Iran will hold talks with the American side in Islamabad for two weeks and solely on the basis of these principles. It is emphasized that this does not mean an end to the war and Iran will accept an end to the war only when, in view of Iran's acceptance of the principles envisaged in the 10-point plan, its details are also finalized in the negotiations.
These negotiations will begin in Islamabad on Friday, April 11, with complete distrust about the US side, and Iran will allocate two weeks for these negotiations. This period can be extended by agreement of the parties.

Aloisius4• 4 months ago

To manipulate the price of oil.

ourmandave2• 4 months ago

But only some sort of sociopath would upend the world just to make a buck. Esp if they're already a billionaire with literally hundreds of other conflicts of interest.

p4coder• 4 months ago

I am guessing that the Oman's share Homruz fees will also shared with Trump businesses (via loss making investments, or another plane etc)

kumarvvr3• 4 months ago

Market manipulation.

Although, it seems like the markets have started to get a sense of this as well and are not so swaying.

doener• 4 months ago

Seems like Trump agreed to give Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz:

https://xcancel.com/araghchi/status/2041655156215799821

AnimalMuppet3• 4 months ago

What in that do you read as "Trump agreed to give Iran control over the Strait of Hormuz"?

For two weeks, you're going to have to consult with Iran to get through the straits.

small_model2• 4 months ago

"Iran's Supreme National Security Council announced that Iran has achieved a major victory, compelling the United States to accept its 10-point plan. Under this plan, the U.S. has committed to non-aggression, recognized Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, accepted Iran’s nuclear enrichment, lifted all primary and secondary sanctions, ended all Security Council and Board of Governors resolutions, agreed to pay compensation to Iran, withdrawn American combat forces from the region, and ceased hostilities on all fronts, including against the heroic Islamic Resistance of Lebanon."

Can't see this holding

lbreakjai• 4 months ago

I don't buy it. The only way this could be more humiliating for the US is if Trump agreed to do a public apology from Tehran. No way the Gulf countries and Israel would even entertain the thought.

surgical_fire9• 4 months ago

I wonder how badly damaged the Gulf countries as Israel were in the past few days.

I have the impression a lot of the damage caused by Iran is being hidden and downplayed.

eunos• 4 months ago

The Gulfs would just follow whatever US wished. They also received the grim reminder that US being far away can just go at a moment notice. Iran is there for eternity figuratively speaking. They all need to learn to live together

ggm3• 4 months ago

But we've had messaging for domestic consumption worldwide since the trojan wars.

What people say in either direction is not a reflection of what happens, it's what they want to say, and have some cohort believe happened.

This is for domestic consumption. As will the WH reports be, facing the US domestic audience.

small_model2• 4 months ago

They didn't have the internet back then, everything is global now im afraid.

joe_the_user2• 4 months ago

The Supreme National Security Council is quoting the agreement that Trump supposedly agreed to. And if that agreement holds, it is hard to see it as anything but a complete Iranian victory.

Keep in mind, the losers in a conflict have more of an incentive to lie than the winners. The US and Israel seem very much the losers here.

dyauspitr• 4 months ago

So Trump completely capitulated then? Not like he had an option because the only other option was essentially genocide/mass murder.

surgical_fire9• 4 months ago

It was still a more realistic announcement than anything Trump said since the beginning of this war.

JumpCrisscross11• 4 months ago

Can't see this holding

Me either. Now one must ask who gains most from time. Israel, America or Iran.

hightrix• 4 months ago

trumps supreme negotiation skills have gotten us a worse agreement than before the senseless, baseless, and aggressive attack on Iran.

What a complete moron.

Computer02• 4 months ago

Worse agreement to some, to others, if the US went through with all of these proposed 'points' it would be an act of global healing.

zahlman8• 4 months ago

have gotten us a worse agreement

A "workable basis on which to negotiate" is not anything remotely like an agreement.

megamike• 4 months ago

Iran's 10-point plan includes:

1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again

2. Permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire

3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon

4. Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran

5. End to all regional fighting against Iranian allies

6. In return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz

7. Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship

8. Iran would split these fees with Oman

9. Iran to provide rules for safe passage through Hormuz

10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations

Bubble12965• 4 months ago

What about the other Middle East countries involved such as the UAE and what about Europe?

surgical_fire9• 4 months ago

Europe, thankfully, stayed out of this mess. Some countries even rejected to even give logistical support to the US.

mgfist2• 4 months ago

Yikes, so basically Iran gets everything it wants. It paid a heavy price for it, but it would get so much out of this. At pre war ship rates, that toll would be ~$90B per year ($45B if split half with Oman). Iran's government generates something like $40B in income, so this would be absolutely monumental.

cmilton2• 4 months ago

It all sounds great. Which government? Is it a different regime? If not, why would the US concede?

petcat• 4 months ago

They also got to keep their new Ayatollah and continue with their religious government. An escalation of the war would have certainly ended with a complete regime change. Which would have been very expensive in life (Iranians) and money (Americans).

testing223212• 4 months ago

How much do you think is fair for being attacked by a superpower for no reason in illegal military action with war crimes sprinkled throughout.

Imagine it happened to you.

Ancapistani• 4 months ago

It depends. If it later comes out that their nuclear material was secured by the US, this is much more acceptable - it would seriously incentivize pipeline construction by making passage through the Strait more expensive. Given that closing it is really the only lever Iran has that can put pressure on the US at all, this attenuates that a great deal.

It’s not acceptable on its face, but there’s a lot going on in this conflict that isn’t making the news.

icegreentea2• 4 months ago

No one has agreed to the Iran's 10 point plan, and they're not going to get all of it.

The provisional ceasefire actually goes against the Iranian proposition. Point 2 explicitly is "permanent end to the war, not a ceasefire".

Iran backed down a bit here from their maximalist aims (which is what the 10 point is).

spuz• 4 months ago

Nothing has been agreed yet except a 2 week ceasefire.

chasd005• 4 months ago

Posts like this from the HN community are almost surreal. Any review of the actual deal would show a two week ceasefire in exchange for the strait being open and safe while negotiations continue. This 10 point plan is just a place to start talking, no country has agreed to anything on it. How is this missed on the community here?

bitcurious• 4 months ago

Do you have a source for this being the 10 points which form the basis of negotiations, rather than something released to the media to shape those negotiations?

peder6• 4 months ago

This is not the deal. Iran had published this earlier as their list of demands, just like the US did. The reality is something in the middle of that.

nunez• 4 months ago

Did we get "The Art of the Deal"'ed?

hackable_sand• 4 months ago

Someone is experiencing materiel gain, that's for sure.

hermitcrab3• 4 months ago

I don't think he read that book. He certainly didn't write it.

Aloisius4• 4 months ago

Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency (via China's state news agency Xinhua[0]) claims the 10 points are:

1. U.S. commitment to ensure no further acts of aggression

2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz

3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights

4. Lifting of all primary sanctions

5. Lifting of all secondary sanctions

6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran

7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran

8. Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war

9. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region

10. Cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon

Which is much different.

[0] https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb59...

kelipso• 4 months ago

Interesting. I have noticed that news about events in Iran has been markedly different within the US and outside the US for years.

joe_the_user2• 4 months ago

It doesn't seem much different. Both involve guaranteed stop of all hostilities plus payment for what you did plus keep we Strait Of Hormuz. The only difference is how the payment for the attack goes.

JumpCrisscross11• 4 months ago

Have the U.S. and Iran agreed the points? Or is this two weeks to hammer them down?

smallmancontrov2• 4 months ago

The Ayatollah Booth is egg on the US's face regardless, but $2M/ship is about $1/barrel for perspective. Spot price is $95/barrel right now.

UncleOxidant• 4 months ago

The differences in the various 10 point lists have been noticed. I wonder if different lists are being produced to make each side look better to their respective populace?

Still, either way lifting sanctions seems like a win for Iran. Also seems like Iran is going to be allowed to charge a transit fee through the SoH. Trump's going to spin this as a win, but it seems like a big loss. Maybe he's just desperate enough to get out of this that he's going to let it slide?

Bender4• 4 months ago

3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights

Among many other items this would never be accepted. This momentary cease fire is just regrouping time for everyone involved and that has always been the case for Iran.

Invictus04• 4 months ago

Either way, it's maximalist aims, not realistic aims. Negotiations will obviously converge closer to US aims since Iran has no leverage.

gpm3• 4 months ago

2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz
6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran
7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran

These seem remarkably outside the USes power to unilaterally agree to.

The first violates international treaties and while I'd be thrilled with the precedent as a Canadian eyeing my countries future revenue streams I doubt the rest of the world's countries are going to be happy to give up freedom of navigation through international waterways.

The second is something that can only be done by the UN security council with a majority vote and none of the permanent members vetoing the termination.

I don't actually know how the IAEA works, but it seems all but certain that that's up to their board of governors not the US.

outside12344• 4 months ago

Even that is wildly worse than when we started the war. This is a unmitigated loss.

dismalaf5• 4 months ago

Yeah 0% chance the US agrees to this.

raffraffraff• 4 months ago

Hmm.

"Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights" (enrichment to what degree?)

"Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran" (what does this actually mean, that they tear up previous reports and findings? Ignore undeclared nuclear facilities and unaccounted for uranium?)

I mean, are Iran basically asking that they be allowed build nuclear weapons unchecked? Or is there another way to read this?

verdverm3• 4 months ago

Aljazeera is sharing roughly the same list

torginus• 4 months ago

The whole concept of the ceasefire is absurd - it's like the joke that to combat the rise of suicides, the government made them punishable by death.

There's no enforcement mechanism, only big dog, small dog logic. What happens if one party breaks the ceasefire? The other starts shooting?

kumarvvr3• 4 months ago

Contrast it with the JCPOA by Obama

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/joint-comprehensive-p...

Key Aspects of the JCPOA: Enrichment Limits: Iran capped uranium enrichment at 3.67% for 15 years.

Centrifuge Restrictions: Reduced operating centrifuges to 5,060 IR-1 machines for 10 years.

Stockpile Restrictions: Limited enriched uranium stockpile to 300 kg for 15 years.

Facility Redesign: Redesigned the Arak heavy water reactor to prevent plutonium production and converted Fordow into a research center.

Monitoring: The IAEA receives enhanced access and monitoring capabilities.

Sanctions Relief: UN, EU, and US nuclear-related sanctions were lifted, restoring Iranian oil sales and banking access.

simonh5• 4 months ago

While since Trump dropped that deal, Iran had enriched around 440kg to 60%. Nobody knows for sure where any of that is.

myko• 4 months ago

yep, the US fucked up by not properly ratifying the JCPOA

tearing it up and pissing all over it led directly to this quagmire

hermitcrab3• 4 months ago

So much winning.

1234letshaveatw2• 4 months ago

What an awful failure that agreement was. Iran accepted the sanctions relief and ignored the terms of the agreement.

GorbachevyChase2• 4 months ago

I’m not sure the terms of negotiation are even worth discussion. Every time this administration has negotiated with anyone on matters pertaining to Israeli interests, it’s only been a ruse to position for another attack.

My guess is that they know good and well all the marine landing craft are going to get smoked and are using a false peace to preposition the ground invasion. The ridiculous James Bond scheme they tried to pull off which resulted in us destroying a dozen of our own aircraft and, quite probably a few of our own operators was a Hail Mary inspired by too much television. That failure leaves the administration with quite the dilemma. Surrender and call it a victory, which Israel will not allow. Or repeat the Syracuse Expedition as farse.

It’s a bit depressing to think about, but my hope is that these catastrophic failures will get false allies out of the decision loop and we proceed as a more peaceful and wiser country.

delis-thumbs-7e6• 4 months ago

false allies

You can just say Israel. I wonder how long it will still take that Netanyahu has not US (or anyone’s at this point, except himself) interest in mind. Even Trump must be able to put two and two together at this point, no?

simonh5• 4 months ago

So this 10 point plan that was “not good enough” according to Trump on Monday 6th April, now as the deadline looms, it’s suddenly “a workable basis” for negotiations?

Frankly if Iran get nothing more than a complete lifting of sanctions this would be a massive climb down for the US.

jrochkind14• 4 months ago

Right.

mizzao• 4 months ago

Trump's rhetoric was all bluster, he actually had no leverage and was unwilling to pay the cost to continue the war (mostly in terms of cost to himself). He needed an offramp and this was it.

donkeybeer4• 4 months ago

Iran if they have any sense should be prepared for a massive self defense and counter attack. "Talks" from the USA and Israel have a precedent of being attacks and invasions.

jrochkind14• 4 months ago

If there's one thing that's pretty clear, it's that the Iranian government is quite aware of this and of how the US acts. The US government, on the other hand, seems oblivious to anything about how the Iranian government acts.

userbinator• 4 months ago

Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran

I do not see that happening.

rokhayakebe• 4 months ago

That's just anchoring.

zild3d• 4 months ago

Iran's 10-point plan (that no one else has agreed to)

peder6• 4 months ago

Exactly, but Hacker News is upvoting this because it wants the US to be seen as the loser of this conflict.

Both sides in a conflict (or any negotiation) make demands that they know the other will not accept. You can't just take someone's list like that and assume that'll be the exact outcome.

SilverElfin• 4 months ago

Why would the US accept these terms? They could just keep crippling Iran’s infrastructure and fuel supply and more until their new leadership fractures. Is this entirely about midterm elections?

CamperBob2• 4 months ago

We could have done that, but Donny Two-Scoops had to go and threaten them with total destruction. That limited his options greatly.

tartoran• 4 months ago

Are this points for discussion or demands by Iran?

keepamovin7• 4 months ago

I can’t accept the theocratic tyrants who implement terrorism, execute their own people and slaughter them as they protest remain in charge. They should be forced out of power.

I wonder if the US had struck when momentum was high during the popular uprising, it could have being self sustaining, with arms and logistics setup to feed the resistance advance.

amritananda3• 4 months ago

The delusional idea that one can affect regime change through bombing is the cause of quite a bit death and destruction throughout the world.

Maybe the problem wasn't the timing, but the fact that thousands of people were killed and millions lived in fear for the future for the past month? That's enough to cause most people to stand behind their government, no matter how reviled they might be.

krige3• 4 months ago

There was, and still is, no scenario in which US and/or Israel attacks Iran and effects regime change. Come on, we've been over this multiple times over the past few decades.

Any direct military action will galvanize population against the existential threat, not against the tyrant who's still your countryman, no matter how rotten.

If they wanted true change, grassroots support was the only way. Was, because at this point more than likely any revolution has been pushed back by a few years at least, probably decades.

cleaning• 4 months ago

Your post is ambiguous until the second part, FYI. In this conflict, it's a good idea to be clear on which nation you are talking about from the start.

karim798• 4 months ago

Source please. Please provide the source for that plan.

dgellow2• 4 months ago

Ok, so that won’t happen right? Israel won’t agree to #3

misja111• 4 months ago

Where did you get those points from? Do you have a source? The 10 points I've read in the media are different, e.g. https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2026/04/08/what-is-i...

direwolf20• 4 months ago

So basically complete American surrender. And America accepted this deal.

selfmodruntime3• 4 months ago

Congratulations, Iran has won the ability to fund its politics many times over in this way and they've lost little else.

breppp4• 4 months ago

Their entire leadership, navy, airforce, petrochemical and steel industries as well as the entire supply chain for the ballistic and drones industries which is also a lucrative export to Russia.

I am not sure they "lost a little else". When looking at what the US lost, it's pretty small in comparison

laydn• 4 months ago

Trump ensured that there is absolutely no reason for any nation, not just Iran, to believe what USA says in the future. No agreements/treaties with the USA can be trusted. And not just with Trump administration, since he demonstrated clearly that he can tear any treaty/agreement that was made under different administrations as well. The United States demonstrated that it has very, very limited control over the actions of an elected president.

21asdffdsa12• 4 months ago

Does it include a end to Hezbollah strikes on Israel from Lebannon, Hoothi strikes on Israel? Sounds like the us just surrendered?

ivell2• 4 months ago

Seems reasonable given their advantageous position.

Iran would split these fees with Oman

Hard to imagine Trump splitting any fees if he was the leader of Iran.

karim798• 4 months ago

Source please. I think we should all get the source of these 10 points from somewhere.

karim798• 4 months ago

Can you please cite the source of these ten points?

joejohnson2• 4 months ago

Sadly they have dropped requirements that Netanyahu be turned over to the ICC, but it's important to recognize that this ceasefire is between Iran and the US only and not necessarily a deal between Iran and Israel.

> 1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again

Hard for the Iranians to take anything the US says seriously. US launched attacks in the middle of the last two negotiations.

da-x• 3 months ago

Yeah, it would be ridiculous that the IRGC terrorist regime, which fired super-inexact ballistic missiles that split to cluster bombs that spread in 70 parts on a 3 miles radius in residential areas, for a whole month, on a daily basis, would ask that someone _else_ will be held go to the ICC tribunal...

jzb• 4 months ago

To summarize: a far worse deal than what Obama had and Trump ripped up, and worse than the status quo that existed before Trump started illegally bombing Iran.

exceptione• 4 months ago

There is a reason Trump had to be saved over and over during his 'career'. Extreme incompetence + clinical narcissism = "I am a winner". This conman and more importantly the powers that prop him up have been very costly for the world, including the USA, and it is about time to hand the bill to MAGA.

Rednecks gonna redneck, the USA clown show has some very determined sponsors, so I don't count on any improvement, but I prefer they at least enjoy their party indoors.

3eb7988a1663• 4 months ago

  "We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated."

The ten point plan which had previously been rejected outright? The 10-point plan which leaves Iran in an incredibly better financial position? So, apart from blowing up children, what did the US gain out of this?

7thpower• 4 months ago

I don’t know, but I hear the Trump boys are going to be doing a JV on some gold plated Persian toll booths. That family has unreal foresight.

eclipticplane• 4 months ago

what did the US gain out of this

Market manipulation and the media largely forgetting about a certain set of files that reference many people in powerful positions.

Spooky23• 4 months ago

Yeah the friends and family made a fortune from this, and we are teed up for the WTI options date which is… two weeks from today.

Krssst2• 4 months ago

Less oil on the market meaning higher fuel prices with the US being a net exporter.

Not sure that was the plan but it looks like a benefit.

outside12344• 4 months ago

Are you talking about the Epstein files that he is in?

cjbgkagh8• 4 months ago

I think this 10 point plan drops the need for US to pay reparations instead relying on transit fees which will be split with Oman.

Missiles are still flying so it’s hard to say who has really agreed to what.

I’ve heard rumors that Iran has agreed to dilute its highly enriched uranium so maybe the US could count that as a win. Given they’ve demonstrated sufficient conventional deterrence they may feel that they don’t need the nukes, especially if they can get some sort of Chinese backed security guarantee. But that might be a trial balloon or wishful thinking.

ajross4• 4 months ago

FWIW, money is the easiest term to agree to. We have lots and lots. I agree, it will never be called "reparations", but you can trivially structure it in a zillion ways that just look like foreign aid or debt forgiveness or whatever. The WHO forgives some loans or the UN agrees to build some infrastructure, and we coincidentally make a new fund of about the same size, etc...

defrost4• 4 months ago

IIRC they had already agreed to dilute the HEU during the negotiations ongoing at the time Trump launched the most recent war / not war / excursion.

ajross4• 4 months ago

what did the US gain out of this?

The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn't.

It's been clear for weeks now that the US has lost this war. The only question was how long it would take Trump to disengage and what the trigger would be.

And the answers appear to be "two more weeks" and "when one plausibly genocidal gaffe went too far and fractured his domestic coalition".

[1] Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.

p1necone• 4 months ago

Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.

I rarely hear people use the term "steelman" while arguing in good faith. It's basically a tacit admission that you are either advancing a position that you don't actually hold (why...?), or more likely you know it's an unpopular position and you want to argue it while having plausible deniability that you may not actually hold it (which is just cowardly).

Stepping through other peoples logic to understand why they may have a position that you do not understand/agree with is sensible for sure. But if you do that in conversation with others so often that you need to preface it with a special term I'm going to be suspicious that you're just trying to obfuscate your actual opinions.

(see also: "just playing devil's advocate here, but...")

panick21_2• 4 months ago

The US got what it actually needed in the Obama area nuclear deal. Trump wont get much more useful stuff.

overfeed• 4 months ago

Trump wont get much more useful stuff.

If Iran can kickback 8- or 9-figures of the strait tolls to Trump's personal accounts, he'll find it very useful.

scoofy3• 4 months ago

Honestly? I presume Trump and Iran both gain the ability to kick the can... which they both want. That ten-point plan is 'unrealistic' but he gets to beat his cheats and it looks like both sides are 'claiming' victory here. That this isn't a workable long-term solution seems almost irrelevant. We're at a point where our bargaining frictions are so high, that we'd both rather remain in this standoff as long as possible even if we don't actually resolve it, because resolving it means serious pain on both sides, whereas the US has about a week before the pain really starts hitting consumers and investors.

"What Causes Wars: An Introduction to Crisis Bargaining Theory", by William Spaniel, PHD and professor, specializing in game-theory and specifically crisis bargaining theory: https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA

ajross4• 4 months ago

That this isn't a workable long-term solution

IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and nuissance to a genuine regional overlord in a single tweet.

"Whoah there, folks. Stop your tankers please. Thanks. Last year was rough for our farmers. We're increasing tolls on the straight again. Don't like it? Come on over and bomb us again you infidel fucks. See how your precious stock market likes that."

Avshalom• 4 months ago

No available evidence suggests that Trump and Hegseth don't just like blowing up children.

tjpnz• 4 months ago

Trump's partial to more than that.

chatmasta2• 4 months ago

What are the chances Claude was used on both sides of this negotiation?

jacquesm6• 4 months ago

This thread is not about Claude or LLMs.

babypuncher• 4 months ago

It successfully pushed the Epstein files out of the news cycle for an entire month.

dboreham5• 4 months ago

The war began because the Epstein compromising material will likely be made public soon. Once that material is public it ceases to have any value to those who were holding it over various people. Those people in turn were ensuring US military support of a certain country. The logic of the war is that it had to happen now, before that material is released, because after that there is some chance the USA would no longer support said country.

incompatible• 4 months ago

Trump kept his name in the headlines, for a narcissist that's all that matters.

dzonga• 4 months ago

some people got very very rich. like rich - that their great grandkids don't have to work.

that's the price of "freedom".

both sides get to save face - Trump says they won, his cronies n himself got rich. Iran gets a better deal than before. Israel gets rid of US bases in the Middle East via Iran.

of course the poor and downtrodden get shifted - that never changes.

bawolff6• 4 months ago

Its only a 2 week ceasefire. Maybe after 2 weeks the sides stay settled down. Maybe they go back to shooting each other. I wouldn't call it over yet.

As far as the geopolitical consequences of all this, i think its still pretty unclear where the chips will fall, but whether a win or a loss for usa, i think the consequences of this war will be significant.

mcs5280• 4 months ago

His insider buddies bought the dip so it's time to pump. It's all about enriching themselves with inside information

xnx• 4 months ago

"'Two weeks' is one of President Trump’s favorite units of time. It can mean something, or nothing at all."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/world/middleeast/trump-ir...

rasz2• 4 months ago

US just agreed to:

Commitment to non-aggression

Continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz

Acceptance of uranium enrichment

Lifting of all primary sanctions

Lifting of all secondary sanctions

Termination of all UN Security Council resolutions

Termination of all Board of Governors resolutions

Payment of compensation to Iran

Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region

Cessation of war on all fronts, including against Hezbollah in Lebanon

TLDR US lost the war, hilarious.

pageandrew2• 4 months ago

Source? Do you seriously think the US just agreed to accept Iranian nuclear enrichment?

etc-hosts4• 4 months ago

The CIA (lets for now ignore the alleged Director of the CIA) has for years been saying Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran has been saying for years it does not have a nuclear weapons program. Every country has the right to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program.

avidiax3• 4 months ago

Israel, I would think, would claim that Iran getting the bomb would be existential to them, so I don't think it's reasonable to think that Israel would agree to allowing enrichment.

I'm a little surprised that recognizing Israel as a nuclear power isn't in Iran's list of demands, considering how destabilizing it would be.

ipaddr2• 4 months ago

Yes, Trump is playing this as a two week period only so they could enrich for the next two weeks.

Things have slide backwards.

bigthymer• 4 months ago

Yes. From what I've read, they can't stop enrichment unless they deploy soldiers for occupation and they are unwilling to do so.

mandeepj2• 4 months ago

Payment of compensation to Iran

Fox News is still singing in chorus about the billion dollars payment to Iran by Obama.

chasd005• 4 months ago

Jfc the US didn’t agree to any of that. Read the news ffs.

100ms• 4 months ago

I don't understand enough about the US system of government. Are there any hopes of seeing Trump unseated before his term is up? If not for the astonishing damage he's doing to the western world, then only for the sheer fatigue from having every media outlet saturated by him on a daily basis.

nirav72• 4 months ago

Nope. Maybe a cheeseburger and mother nature.

throwaway1737382• 4 months ago

Vance is actually worse. He’s basically a sock puppet for Peter Thiel.

le-mark2• 4 months ago

If the Dems win the house in the midterms he will be impeached again. If there are 60 votes in the senate he will be out. Dems are unlikely to win the senate, let alone 60 seats.

It’s a bizarre situation in that US elections have such a huge impact on a world that has no say.

jjordan• 4 months ago

Need 66 senate votes to impeach in the senate.

etc-hosts4• 4 months ago

Trump has been impeached before. Doesn't matter. The seriousness of the word 'impeachment' has been greatly devalued.

vjvjvjvjghv2• 4 months ago

I really hope the democrats won’t start the impeachment nonsense showbusiness again and instead focus on actual policy that benefits people. I am very worried that Congress will go even lower and devolve into permanent investigations and impeachments while the country has actual serious problems that aren’t worked on.

Aloisius4• 4 months ago

It’s a bizarre situation in that US elections have such a huge impact on a world that has no say

No say (or at least, no influence) might be a bit strong given foreign election interference.

I'm sure if Britain or France or whoever wanted to, they could have their intelligence services release dirt on candidates or engage in some dirty tricks.

voidfunc• 4 months ago

Nah, he's here until he exits on his own. Sorry.

newAccount2025• 4 months ago

No. Theoretically congress could impeach him, but his party has proven they will support him no matter what his crimes. Theoretically his cabinet could remove him with the 25th amendment but they are all complicit and will need pardons for themselves.

clbrmbr• 4 months ago

25A removal is temporary pending a bar in congress even higher than that for impeachment (2/3 of house and senate).

avidiax3• 4 months ago

Barring something catastrophic happening, I would bet that nothing will unseat Trump until January 20, 2027, at 12:00 PM (noon).

At that point, when J.D. Vance is inaugurated, he would be allowed to run and serve for 2 additional full terms (10 years total as president).

Before that, his partial term would count as a full term, and he could only run, win and serve one additional term.

This is all based on the 22nd Amendment, which established term limits.

JD is basically Peter Thiel's manchurian candidate, and some have claimed that it's the plan all along that Trump would probably not complete his term, leaving JD as the president and presumptive nominee for future terms.

Maken2• 4 months ago

Now that's a bleak picture of the future.

yoyohello132• 4 months ago

This seems extremely likely. I’m already unconvinced the elections are going to be fair this year, but I am certain an impeachment would piss the conservatives off so much there would be another red swing during 2028 elections. Then after 4 years of JD Vance we will be living in the United States of Jesus so nothing will matter much anymore.

steve-atx-76004• 4 months ago

Trump has power because he shows up to a rally and tons of folks join. People want to follow him. JD who?

throwaway1737382• 4 months ago

Trump’s party runs on a platform of subservience and fear and a lot of people either eat that stuff up or else believe their vote doesn’t count. The electoral college basically keeps the populous parts of the country hostage to the rural areas. And the rural areas believe that they contribute all the taxes for all the federal programs their parents created. We’ve basically become completely demoralized as a nation since the Baby Boomers took over for their parents and we’re busy continuing the plot. It won’t be over until we pull our heads out of our butts and start building things together or we become a third-world country.

stacktraceyo• 4 months ago

I don’t get how congress doesn’t have the power to deny/approve this war. Dont even impeach, dont you have to get congressional approval for this stuff?

deathanatos4• 4 months ago

[The Congress shall have Power ...] To declare War,

One might even think that not getting Congress's permission, as required, might be an impeachable offense.

But you should read about [the War Powers Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause#History_and_...), and in particular, our messy, messy history with it starting at the Korean War and continuing to the present day.

deathanatos4• 4 months ago

Are there any hopes of seeing Trump unseated before his term is up?

I don't think so.

There's two routes, one improbable, one "hell freezes over" level.

The first route is impeachment & conviction. Our legislative branch is composed of two parts: the House and the Senate. The House would impeach him, and if impeached by the House, he would be tried by the Senate.

Currently, the GOP (Trump's party) has a majority of both the House & the Senate. It would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to convict an impeached president, and I do not see the Democrats winning the necessary seats in the next election (Nov 2026). We do not re-elect every seat at every election in the Senate (they are staggered). Assuming the vote is along party lines, i.e., Dems/Indepedents vote to convict, and GOP vote to acquit, of the 22 GOP seats up for election, all but 2 would need to flip in November in order for a party-lines vote to convict. 4 of the GOP-held seats were won with 65% or higher votes in their last election. I do not see enough seats flipping, nor enough politicians cross parties lines.

The other route, which social media is for whatever reason abuzz right now with, is the 25th Amendment. It permits the Vice President & the Cabinet members to issue a declaration that Trump is unable to discharge his duties. The President himself can end such a declaration, which in this case, I would expect he would immediately do; it would then have to be contested by VP/Cabinet, at which point it would go to Congress, and both House & Senate would need a 2/3rds vote to make it stick.

Impeachment & conviction seems the far easier route, only requiring a 2/3rd vote in the Senate. (The vote to impeach is, somewhat oddly to me, a simple majority vote.)

jauntywundrkind• 4 months ago

Everything else aside, really relieved for the tanker crews stuck inside the Gulf, with no port that will take them, who are not-so-slowly running out of food.

They can get out? Right? Right Anakin?

slg• 4 months ago

I wonder why this post is worthy of staying on the HN front page but all the articles about Trump's threats that "A whole civilization will die tonight" got flag killed. I guess the president making genocidal threats isn't "interesting" enough to meet HN's moderation standards.

Maken2• 4 months ago

Let's just be glad somebody talked him out of using nukes. For now.

dang3• 4 months ago

I was just answering a similar comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47683437.

steve-atx-76004• 4 months ago

We all know he’d say something like that and that there’s a chance he’d actually do it. It isn’t really newsworthy. This isn’t the set of minds that needs to change to affect change in the short term anyway.

idle_zealot• 4 months ago

We already attacked Iran twice during "talks," is there any indication that we mean it this time, or are we just going to bomb them again while negotiations are ongoing?

tdeck• 4 months ago

This will be the one ceasefire that Israel respects?

themafia• 4 months ago

They underestimated Iran's unique mix of capabilities and strategy. It's not that Iran is undefeatable but it seems that the price is going to be far too high both globally and especially regionally for the tiny coalition of Israel and the US to succeed in the long term.

I think it says something that the US paid such a high price to try to produce a "viral military campaign" video of a Uranium heist. Straight out of the cold war. The palatable options must be steadily dwindling.

ghywertelling4• 4 months ago

I have a Naive question, "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"

Avicebron2• 4 months ago

I mean...we have body cams for police..

giantg24• 4 months ago

Because most world leaders are actors. They put on a show to get elected or retain power. They don't want to look weak and want to spin the final outcome to their favor. That can include one side allowing the other to take credit for an idea that wasn't their's.

throw0101c5• 4 months ago

"why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"

It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc.

There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).

majani2• 4 months ago

There are ego maniacs and people from shame cultures who would be animalistically obstinate in the face of globally televised embarrassment

brazukadev• 3 months ago

Compared to the last World War, things are broadcasted quite immediately. The delay is just barely enough to create a narrative that fits the audience.

sequoia• 4 months ago

Ceasefires are not in place until they are in place. Before they are in place, war is still ongoing. Discussing a ceasefire does not mean there is a ceasefire currently.

delis-thumbs-7e6• 4 months ago

Because Trump’s war caused massive oil price hike, destabilised energy supply for the whole world, was extremely unpopular even amongst Maga and Iran regime showed that to beat them into submission you would have kill 92 million people making Trump a Hitier-level war criminal and US a global pariah.

It will be very difficult for Trump to start his war again. He is not thinking about US or even his supporters at this point, but his own legacy, but he is too dumb to understand when Israel and his own staff are lying to him.

That’s why Iran has a very strong position to go to the negotiations. You also killed all the more sensible people in the regime, so there’s only hardliners left. There is nothing to win US or Trump, everything to lose. Iran on the other hand only has to sit tight.

This is how a nation stops being a super power and an empire falls.

notepad0x90• 4 months ago

I just don't know how his supporters aren't embarrassed.

Nominative determinism is insane. one man trumped the legacy and fortunes of a great nation.

dboreham5• 4 months ago

It's a self selection or axiomatic property: if you're his supporter then you have no capability for being embarrassed in the first place.

blurbleblurble2• 4 months ago

They're utterly embarrassed it's just that they've been persistently encouraged via their amygdalas to project their own shame and insecurities onto others, as well as to swallow insane rationales as to why even though these people are evil it's a necessary bitter pill for the worldly government to swallow in order to bring in the eternal kingdom

nickpeterson• 4 months ago

If the USA walks away and lets every other country pay a new fee to Iran… That would be interesting…

RiverStone32• 4 months ago

It will unify countries against Iran and maybe they’ll actually participate to open the strait like Trump asked them to

tristanj29• 4 months ago

It will not happen. The only way Iran can enforce the fee is by actually shooting missiles at ships that don't pay. This is an act of war and terrorism; and in our current international order, is not viable solution. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf countries, will never agree to it.

Another reason it won't work -- by Iran's logic, every nation adjacent to a strait of water can levy a toll on ships that pass through.

Why doesn't the UK charge tolls on ships that pass through the English channel, and bomb them if they don't pay up?

The same logic applies to the Strait of Gibraltar (Spain, UK, Morocco) and the Strait of Malacca (Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia).

pjc502• 4 months ago

Gibraltar's political situation is what it is because this was sorted out in the Treaty of Utrecht three hundred years ago, and Europe got very tired of leaders that thought they could redraw the map at the cost of millions of lives.

Probably the best we can expect from Iran is a frozen conflict like Korea or Cyprus, that stays frozen.

HaloZero• 4 months ago

Who is going to invade Iran and stop them from shooting missiles at passing chips?

cheriot2• 4 months ago

Let's not forget the road to war started in 2016 when Trump walked into the White House at withdrew from the JCPOA. He's wanted the war for years, got it, and lost it.

danny_codes• 4 months ago

Hey now, the JCPOA was designed to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and was working effectively at doing that. That’s completely different from what Trump is demanding now, which is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear..

Wait I think Trump dementia’d again

HKH2• 4 months ago

Israel would still get the US to attack Iran regardless.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

JCPOA was a really stupid, badly designed deal, it never placed any limits on missile or drone production. Obama wanted a deal badly, and it was rushed through negotiations without addressing this point for a quick political win.

Iran kept developing its ballistic missiles and drone program even after the deal was signed, and a decade later, Iran has hundreds of thousands of drones and 20,000+ ballistic missiles. A thousand ballistic missiles do as much damage, if not more, than a single nuke.

It also leads to the interceptor problem, namely, it is not possible to stop thousands of missiles coming towards you, and eventually you run out of interceptors and get overwhelmed.

It was a really dumb deal, and this issue was called out at the time, but nothing was done about it. It's like an agreement between Mom and two kids that are fighting. Mom tells one kid, "Okay, promise not to kick your brother!" and he agrees. So he starts learning to punch instead.

cheriot2• 4 months ago

The nuclear program is orders of magnitude more important than everything else. If you think JCPOA was bad, take a look at Iran's 10 point plan.

zahlman8• 4 months ago

How do you reconcile this with the fact that he supposedly got no opportunity for it in four years the first time around?

How do you reconcile this supposed war-mongering attitude with the existence of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords ?

aorloff• 4 months ago

I felt it in my bones that Trump would see a way to agree to a 2 week extension

SecretDreams• 4 months ago

Look, I'm glad we're pausing this. But I'd like to understand why an article on the pause shoots right to the top, but news of a tweet from the president indicating a plan to annihilate a whole country does not see a similar rise to the top.

dang3• 4 months ago

It's too random a process to be precisely answerable about a specific data point or two.

One could argue that this is a doing-something as opposed to a saying-something, and thus more substantive. Or perhaps people want some good news to believe in? I don't know - one can make up lots of just-so stories about these things (see paragraph 1).

RevEng• 4 months ago

Trump tweets insane things hourly. A reputable news organization announcing something actually happening with quotes from both sides confirming is news worthy.

steve-atx-76004• 4 months ago

I used to feel this way, but I think at this point you don’t need much of a brain to realize he’s a narcissist grifter that serves only himself without limit. A fellow gets tired of seeing his mouth shit all over the place. Peace/less killing is a positive break I’d much rather hear about.

surgical_fire9• 4 months ago

Trump says a lot of shit all the time, and often contradicts himself right after.

Listening to what he has to say is nearly worthless. Better to react to his actions.

chatmasta2• 4 months ago

Better article with text: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/07/trump-iran-w...

Israel will also agree to the two-week ceasefire, Axios reported, citing an Israeli official, adding that the ceasefire would enter effect as soon as the blockade of the strait of Hormuz ceased

There’s the catch.

nickvec3• 4 months ago

Yep. No way they’re opening the Strait of Hormuz until the US/Israel gets the fuck out of Iran.

chasd005• 4 months ago

They’re not in Iran. Both countries have announced an end to offensive operations in the past half hour or so.

bawolff6• 4 months ago

And no way US stops bombing them unless they open the strait (I say US because Israel doesnt care about the strait).

I think such an agreement is plausible. Trump really cares about oil prices, and i imagine Iranian leadership would really like to stop being bombed.

ceejayoz6• 4 months ago

Israel seems likely to do anything they can to start things up again.

rvz• 4 months ago

They will try for a last minute "false flag" to bait the US to think that Iran broke the ceasefire first as always.

To Downvoters: You do understand that it was Israel that attacked first right? They are not happy with this provisional ceasefire agreement.

bawolff6• 4 months ago

They dont have to do anything but wait. Its only a 2 week ceasefire.

whalesalad• 4 months ago

They already have

akabalanza• 4 months ago

They will stop bombing as soon as Iran comes back to the situation for which it was bombed.

dang3• 4 months ago

Ok, I've switched the link above to that and put the submitted URL in the toptext.

If there are other good links, we can add them.

Rotdhizon• 4 months ago

The US is one thing but there is no possible way Israel will stop bombing. They will openly say they will, and continue to do so. It just gives them more breathing room to calculate bigger and more serious strikes. Israel has literally nothing to lose. The US is taking all the heat for any actions in Iran. Israel and Iran are mortal enemies, one can not continue to exist while the other lives, this is how they view it. Iran wants Israel erased, Israel wants Iran erased. This isn't going to stop until one of them suffers catastrophic damage.

Bubble12965• 4 months ago

I believe from what I have heard and read that Israel will likely only stop if US formally withdraws military support in a sense that they stop supplying weapons (?)

ajsnigrutin3• 4 months ago

Israel has literally nothing to lose.

Israel has a lot to lose, the question is only how much of the lost will be replaced by american taxpayers' money. They're almost out of anti-air interceptors, the war they started in lebanon is going badly and iran still has tens of thousands of drones left. There's also hamas and hezbollah and more and more of the world is turning against them, be it in proper politics or even mundane stuff like the eurovision.

And it's not just the aljazeera and similar media, the israelis said it themselves: https://www.timesofisrael.com/zamir-said-to-warn-cabinet-tha...

testing223212• 4 months ago

If we have to choose, it seems the world would be better off without Israel committing genocide

henry2023• 4 months ago

If the war (population displacement / genocide / ethnic cleansing, you can call it however you want to) in Gaza has taught the world something is that the current Israeli regime is visceral and they clearly think they are above any international conventions. Of course they will not stop bombing any of its neighbors until we 1) stop funding and 2) start sanctioning them for their war crimes.

I wonder if regime change could help alleviate the tensions in the region.

Bubble12965• 4 months ago

I'm just curious here: if we really think about today's conflict in the Middle East regarding the GCC, Israel, the US, and Europe, we can trace this back to US-USSR relations in 1945, as well as the 1980s leading up to 2001. I'm wondering what are everyone's finding on this and what are your opinions?

tmnvix• 4 months ago

Yes, seems a bit of a gap between US and Iranian opinions on the state of the strait. US says "open it", while Iran has for some time claimed it is open - only subject to conditions. Then, as you mention, the Israelis talk of an end to the blockade.

I foresee a possible relaxation of conditions on the strait by Iran while keeping their hand on the lever providing substantial leverage during any actual negotiations. I also note that it seems the US are considering Iranian demands - not the other way around. Even with that, Trumps' toughest negotiations may be with the Israelis.

Levitating• 4 months ago

An hour before the "deadline", by the way

robinsoncrusue• 4 months ago

Always look at the actions, not the talks.

Reality on the ground is: US has been amassing troops in tens of thousands. Their mercenary IDF is claiming territory like a field day. Market has barely capitulated (which is the only thing this admin care about).

I expect this is just Trump buying time until he launches ground invasion after two weeks of failed negotiation. You don't spend millions sending tens of thousands of soldiers and billion dollar worth of hardware to just call them back to base.

Trump will "negotiate" and then in the middle of negotiation start a ground invasion just like they did in the past while they map all the military targets for ground invasion (which is hard to when missiles flying all the time). Possibly also replenish their interceptor stocks from other regions which has been running low.

If you follow the kind of people advising him and have his ears (Witkoff, Kushner, Loomer, Levin) they are all for ground invasion.

But yeah, win for US. Oil prices will rebound giving economy the breathing time. Possibly also time to arm the insurgents to regroup for regime change.

surgical_fire9• 4 months ago

Tens of thousands of troops are not really enough to invade a country the size of Iran.

The US used an order of magnitude more in Iraq, which had a third of the population, and a smaller and more geographically forgiving territory.

BLKNSLVR• 4 months ago

Yeah, but the Iranian armed forces have been obliterated...

jasdfwasd• 4 months ago

Trump and Netanyahu believe they can win this one [1]:

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...

cjbgkagh8• 4 months ago

And the IEDs were in the ground not flying overhead. Asymmetric war has completely changed the math.

dboreham5• 4 months ago

they are all for ground invasion

Ahh those titans of military stragegy.

phainopepla2• 4 months ago

Trump will "negotiate" and then in the middle of negotiation start a ground invasion just like they did in the past while they map all the military targets for ground invasion (which is hard to when missiles flying all the time)

Why is it hard map military targets while missiles are flying? Don't missile launches reveal targets? And I would assume that the mapping is mostly done via satellite, which aren't affected by missiles

jopsen2• 4 months ago

Their mercenary IDF

Lol, under what definition?

Personally, I have a hard time seeing any good actors here.

But of all the actors, I kind of doubt Israel is in it for the money.

throw0101c5• 4 months ago

Reality on the ground is: US has been amassing troops in tens of thousands.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq had 500,000 troops, for a country smaller in area than Iran and with fewer people.

The current 50,000 US troops isn't going to do much against Iran as a whole.

markus_zhang2• 4 months ago

OK I guess it is pause time. US and Israel are probably restocking on whatever missiles they can get, while Iran doing the same, and Russian/China rushing stuffs to Iran through sea and railroad.

At least I got a cheaper tank of gasoline tomorrow…

chasd005• 4 months ago

Gas won’t be any cheaper. While gas prices rise by the hour they take months to ever so slowly go down.

torlok2• 4 months ago

There's no ceasefire until Israel stops attacking. Iran retains control over the strait, and their demands haven't changed. Nothing's new other than Iran is ready to sit at the negotiating table because Trump caved-in enough.

df2df2• 4 months ago

Not really. The fact we have a cease-fire signals the U.S. does not want to continue further with the war.

The reality is making statements re. actions associated with committing war-crimes has left the US with no friends... except Israel.

raziel2701• 4 months ago

Oh brother, gas goes up in a hurry, it takes its sweet time to come down.

zahlman8• 4 months ago

The way I recall things, in 2022 they took half the year to go up and were back to normal by the end. The statistics I can easily find corroborate this.

hypeatei2• 4 months ago

Didn't the US and Israel gather intelligence during previous "talks" which ended up with senior Iranian leadership dead? It seems unlikely that this relationship would be fixed by now, and a deal would require big concessions from one side... of which one is polling real badly at home currently.

Between the threats to NATO allies, high oil prices, lifting of sanctions on Russian oil, US personnel losing their lives, military equipment losses, and broken campaign promises... I don't think this is something you just walk away from. It's still not clear why we're there in the first place; one could speculate that Trump was convinced by Israel that this operation would be like Venezuela which seems plausible because no US intelligence agencies backup the notion that Iran was developing or trying to develop nuclear weapons.

dboreham5• 4 months ago

He was convinced for other reasons to proceed with the operation. Reasons to do with what might happen to him personally if not.

hypeatei2• 4 months ago

I don't know if you're implying kompromat or assassination but I think the explanation that they played into his ego and got him to do their dirty work in Iran is much simpler and makes more sense. Every President before Trump has told Israel no when they asked for "assistance" with Iran.

storus• 4 months ago

Does this mean that Iran will have functional nukes in two weeks? Given how previous "ceasefires" turned out (blowing up their leadership), I don't think they are naive again and don't seem desperate to end it.

giantg24• 4 months ago

Given how the past nuclear deals went over decades, there's little hope of follow through now.

scythe4• 4 months ago

JCPoA compliance was verified by the US and the IAEA regularly until the agreement was suspended by Donald Trump in 2018.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

No, there is more to building a functioning nuke than just fuel enrichment.

leonidasrup3• 4 months ago

The access to highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium is the limiting factor for construction of nuclear weapons.

It really depends on how small and how efficient you need to make weapon, a nuclear weapon fitting inside a rocket nose cone is much more sophisticated than nuclear weapon that has to be only transportable by truck, ship or airplane.

For example, the simple design of Little Boy used on Hiroshima contained 64 kilograms of uranium, but less than a kilogram underwent nuclear fission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_boy

"Unlike the implosion design developed for the Trinity test and the Fat Man bomb design that was used against Nagasaki, which required sophisticated coordination of shaped explosive charges, the simpler but inefficient gun-type design was considered almost certain to work, and was never tested prior to its use at Hiroshima."

So with access to highly enriched uranium (enrichment greater than 90%), a large and crude bomb could be produced in few weeks. How could they deliver it anywhere? They don't have airplanes. Truck? Speedboat?

dataflow• 4 months ago

How does anyone just open a strait that has mines in it in 2 weeks?

danans4• 4 months ago

How does anyone just open a strait that has mines in it in 2 weeks?

The strait has been open for weeks for friendly countries' ships that pay Iran $2M per passage through their "toll booth", an unmined route through Iranian territorial waters.

This ceasefire appears legitimize that situation. If it holds, Iran is about to make huge amounts of money on top of sanctions relief.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

The strait is barely mined, at most a few dozen mines were placed. Multiple ships have transited through in Omani waters since the start of the conflict. So far none have been struck by mines.

The threat why boats do not cross are Iranian missiles / drones striking ships attempting to pass thru, without paying a protection fee. It's basically a terrorism protection fee.

vincnetas7• 4 months ago

does policemen shooting at you when you don't listen to his orders is considered terorism? i would say its just enforcing tax collection.

smcnc10• 4 months ago

I don’t see how the majority of comments paint this as a victory for Iran. Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships? I guess I’m missing something. War sucks but in this case Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.

Avicebron2• 4 months ago

We'll see if gas prices go down I suppose?

actionfromafar4• 4 months ago

Well it's all settled then! Guess the show's over. Everything will be fine from now on. What else can be done to avoid the Epstein files?

ourmandave2• 4 months ago

We threatened to invade Cuba unless they "make a deal", whatever that means.

Probably be the next Venezuela, except they help us against drug dealers, so I'm not sure what lies will be told to justify this one.

oa3355• 4 months ago

Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed

How are they still firing missiles and downing aircraft?

computerex5• 4 months ago

Wars are about objectives. The USA managed to accomplish none of its objectives. Iran forced USA to concede and call for ceasefire before US could achieve objectives. That’s the definition of defeat. Iran won by not losing and holding out.

Iran has more leverage at the end of this war than it did at the start. Iran has proven that it has the capability to catastrophically disrupt global economy.

shash2• 4 months ago

That analysis requires discovering what the US’s objectives were. Not sure we can…

smcnc10• 4 months ago

More leverage with less conventional firepower? Objectives of reducing conventional military threats and nuclear weapons seem less now, no?

blix6• 4 months ago

What action can Iran take today that they couldn't take a year ago? No one who has been paying attention should be surprised that Iran can shut down the straight. It has been a known factor for decades.

They have less leverage. The have so much less that they are forced to openly use their last and most powerful card for their survival, when they never have had to before. That is a position of weakness, not strength.

georgemcbay3• 4 months ago

I don't think its a victory for either Iran or the US.

Iran suffered a lot of losses in terms of people and widescale destruction of infrastructure.

But the US lost too, we come out of this war looking much weaker and more chaotic than we did going in, not to mention the amount of money we poured into it while accomplishing nothing (nothing we destroyed in Iran was a threat to us until we bombed them in the first place).

8note13• 4 months ago

iran paid costs they expected to pay beforehand, but the result of negotation is that they dont need to give the concessions they were previously willing to give.

thats a pretty clear win. they paid a heavy cost for it sure, and war is expensive, but as a negotiation tactic goes, doing the war was a success

dominicrose• 4 months ago

It's hard to see how the US benefits because the US is geographically very far away from this region but I don't think it was an expensive war: short duration, mostly just an air campaign. IMO Trump did this to send a message to the world.

Gulf countries and Israel should feel much better though, despite the losses, knowing that Iran's capacity is now limited to terrorist-like harassment. This is not the end however as the US, Israel and hopefully other countries should continue to monitor Iran closely.

therobots927• 4 months ago

And the US / Israel demonstrated that Iran has their balls in a vice.

Win some lose some.

jopsen2• 4 months ago

is an impotent threat of attacking ships?

All the ships stuck in the Gulf probably didn't consider the threat impotent.

On the other side: what more can the US do? Target civilian infrastructure? There is no appetite for getting stuck with boots on the ground, and everyone (including Iran) knows this.

You're probably right that it won't a win for anyone. If some of the points includes removing sanctions from Iran, it might be a huge win -- for Iran, or at-least it's population.

smcnc10• 4 months ago

This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.

squibonpig2• 4 months ago

Asymmetric warfare shouldn't be measured on the metrics of conventional warfare. Iran can continue to cause enormous economic pain for the world without any of that.

smcnc10• 4 months ago

Agree with same comment as above.

This is true. 90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.

doctorpangloss• 4 months ago

Iran can continue to cause enormous economic pain for the world without any of that.

should every non-Western country be subsidizing all consumer fuel costs?

PierceJoy2• 4 months ago

impotent threat of attacking ships

You've been paying attention to what's happened over the last few weeks and you qualify that threat as impotent? That impotent threat basically brought the rest of the world to it's knees.

smcnc10• 4 months ago

Cost of insurance for ships did.

andrepd• 4 months ago

Iran is a shell of the threat it was a month ago.

That's why it is crippling the entire world's economy and demanding concessions bigger than the status quo ante bellum, with the US powerless to stop it. Because it's no threat.

smcnc10• 4 months ago

90% destruction of military is meaningless if 10% can wreck havoc on the strait. The cost associated with eliminating that 10% was deemed too much. That is Iran’s “win”.

kumarvvr3• 4 months ago

I think the nature of war has changed. A slow moving swarm of drones, will keep large Aircraft carriers well outside the range of their fighter jets.

A nation can swarm an aircraft carrier with a 1000 drones, each costing about 40k USD. Only a few are needed to seriously damage the carrier. Not to mention ballistic missiles.

In this scenario, does a US massive, slow moving aircraft carrier possibly carrying hundreds of billions of assets really work ? Can the US meaningfully project power with these?

In this scenario, who holds more power or leverage ?

An aircraft carrier can project power within 500 miles. The idea is to use a few of these to knock out the air power of the opposing nation, basically airfields, missile stockpiles, factories, power infra, etc. And then drop in a ground invasion force.

Does this now work? I dont think so. 10 drones can be launched from the back of a truck.

m0llusk• 4 months ago

No need to swarm the carriers. Support craft are far more vulnerable, absolutely required, and low in numbers at this time.

gizajob3• 4 months ago

A bunch of drones can’t be sent to knock out the American president and all its top generals and intelligence agents.

QED

raspasov2• 4 months ago

The US Navy has quite a few more tricks up its sleeve apart from aircraft carriers. Just one publicly known that immediately comes to mind: amphibious assault ships, which can launch/land F35s.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tripoli_(LHA-7) [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCMSKTxgQI4

lawgimenez• 4 months ago

And destroyed a school full of children too.

throw0101c5• 4 months ago

Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA, and the only thing preventing you from permanent destruction or regime change is an impotent threat of attacking ships?

* Which doesn't mean much nowadays: see Ukraine, and the perseverance of the Taliban who eventually got their way.

* Are you talking about now? Or last year when everyone was told that the nuclear program was obliterated? If it was then, why was there a second round of attacks in this year? And it's not like the existing stockpiles of enriched uranium vanished.

* As Ukraine has shown, you can have a defence industry in people's basements churning out 4M drones per year that can do a lot of damage.

* Yes, the past leadership was KIA. And new people were put in place who are more hardliner hawks than what was taken out. So how is a more hawk-ish regime a "win" for the US?

* An "impotent attack" that has kept several thousand ships sidelined in the Gulf? That has caused fuel (petrol, diesel, kerosene, LNG) prices skyrocket? That have caused helium (needed in chip manufacturing, MRIs, etc) prices to triple? If that's "impotent" I would hate to see effective.

jrochkind14• 4 months ago

It's not clear to me they are much less of a threat than they ever were, but it's also not clear to me they were ever much of a threat.

They did everything they could in this war, didn't they, and apparently it didn't do too too much? (other than the economic damage of closing the strait, which seems to be what worked). But I think they could probably keep doing everything they've been doing still? (including controlling the strait).

booleandilemma• 4 months ago

1) Trump threatens stone age for Iran if they don't open the strait.

2) Iran agrees to open the strait if they're not attacked.

What happened here is they caved under Trump's threat but they're going to make it look like they're opening the strait on their terms, while Trump will make it look like they're opening the strait on his terms (which actually makes more sense, because if they didn't open the strait we'd have probably started bombing them)

And Iran's military hasn't been destroyed, they still control the strait. How do you explain that if they don't have a military?

noelsusman2• 4 months ago

The companies with billions on the line didn't seem to think Iran's threats to attack ships were impotent.

Their military capabilities are diminished in the short term, but if their ability to impose a toll on the Strait of Hormuz holds then that's a massive win for Iran in the medium/long term. A mere $2M per ship represents 10% of Iran's GDP. They would become the only country in the world to impose a toll on international waters, and they would have established a defensive deterrent almost as effective as having a nuclear bomb.

They took on the most powerful military ever seen and lived to tell the tale. It's hard to spin that as a loss for Iran.

gizajob3• 4 months ago

Hard to spin your supreme leader and all your generals and military commanders being flattened as a win.

samrus12• 4 months ago

Hormuz isnt international waters. Its split between iran and oman, as woukd the toll be in irans proposal

swat5353• 4 months ago

1. Nuclear sites are not "in rubble", uranium is very much intact. They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission and had to scrap it (oversight by CIA) near Isfahan.

2. Leadership KIA doesn't matter, IRAN has a decentralized leadership, not a top down one.

3. Military apparatus is intact, majority of missile cities are still operating, over 1M IRGC forces mobilized with many more men willing to sign up.

4. Strait of Hormuz is fully under control of IRAN, "impotent threat of attacking ships" (even though IRAN has much more power) is more than enough to control it.

6. No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever

7. Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf

8. Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded (we'll see what the actual numbers are after CENTCOM releases them finally)

9. Sanctions lifted on Russia, helping them majorly profit. China is still collecting cheap oil.

10. Israel took heavy damage, losing many interceptors as well.

11. Brent 100$+ for 40 days, causing major global issues.

To be fair, US did manage to kill 170 kids on day 1 and bomb bridges, hospitals, universities and civilian areas.. so I guess that's a "win" for you?

spiderice• 4 months ago

1. Why pretend like you have any insight into the state of Iranian uranium? Just immediately makes you unreliable.

2. Ah yes, "supreme leader" doesn't sound "top down" at all

3. If by "still operating" you mean, not shooting missiles out of fear of getting destroyed. Sure. But that's silly.

4. For now. But very unlikely to last, imo.

6. "IRGC stronger than ever" is an insane take. How could they be stronger than before this war? They aren't. Again, shows that you're completely unreliable on this subject

7. "Millions of dollars" haha. Oh no, not millions with an "M"!

8. Sure. But how are you going to downplay the damage to Iran and then emphasize the damage to the US when they are many orders of magnitude different? Like, surely you don't think the damages are at all comparable

9. So long as Iran has oil to sell, yes

10. K.. again, playing up damages that are orders of magnitude less than what Iran has sustained

11. True

You seem to be very confident in your understanding of what is currently going on in Iran, despite the fact that you no longer live there. Obviously the IRGC has the internet turned off for a reason. They want to be able to control the narrative. And if it were all roses like you're making it out to be, they would personally be paying the internet bill of every Iranian to spread the word. Yet instead, they silence your people.

And do you really want to bring up the school, as tragic as it was, after your government slaughtered like 30,000 of its own citizens days before that? Motes and beams and all that.

gpt52• 4 months ago

The reality is far more nuanced, and not clearly a win to Iran. We saw how degraded their military capabilities became when they couldn't capture a pilot on their own land for nearly 48 hours. We also saw that the number of rockets that they used "in total" has only just recently reached the number they used in the June war last year with Israel.

Diplomatically, we saw Lebanon, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia expelling Iranian diplomats (some even threatening war with Iran). And the entire gulf region unite against Iran. All while Iran's allies were mostly passive.

It's quite likely that Iran would need to deal with the mess both internally (as the power grab in the leadership vacuum could take place), and externally with the neighbors it bombed. Iran needs to make it appear as a win internally, and that's something that would affect any long term agreement.

Regardless, whether it's a win to ETTHER side remains to be seen when a more permanent agreement is signed. If for example Iran actually manages to impose a fee on passing ships, then that's a major achievement for Iran, and could create a dangerous pretendant for other regions (like the strait of Malacca in Indonesia, Bab El-Mandeb and even the South China sea.

blix6• 4 months ago

All policy aimed at preventing nuclear Iran has one goal: buy time. I think it is hard to argue that time has not been bought (though how much and whether the price was right is another question). The only semi-stable long term option is a friendly Iranian government. The IRGC's main purpose is to occupy Iran, so anything that makes them weaker, less stable and more decentralized improves the odds of successful internal revolt in the long run. It is really hard for me to see how any of this has made the IRGC more stable in the long run.

The threat of the strait closure has always been a major factor in Iran policy from all relevant nations, it is just now explicit. It's hard to take the Russia point seriously when the war forced both Russia and Iran to shift resources form the Ukrainian theater to the Persian Gulf; it seems to be close to a wash. It's also kinda silly to gas up using interceptors for their intended purpose as "heavy damage" or catastrophize about rounding errors in damage to USA assets, while simulatenously writing off the total effect of all USA/Israel actions as inconsequential.

Disruption to global fossil fuel supply chains was also a goal of this war, so I am not sure you should list it as a negative. In the current state of the world, USA interests and global economic interests are becoming increasingly decoupled, and one shouldn't assume they are automatically aligned.

Also this has probably done more to hasten the world's weaning off fossil fuels than any action by any other government.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

They attempted to extract some of it with the failed F15 mission

This is fake Iranian propaganda. It makes no logical sense. The force sent to extract the F15 officer (approx 2 C130s of equipment) is far to small to retrieve tons of nuclear material stored at Isfahan.

Military apparatus is intact

No, the IRGC is struggling. After weeks of bombardment, they are unable to provide food or basic supplies for its own army. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202604074692

Sources said that over the past 72 hours, operational forces have faced acute shortages of basic supplies, including edible food, hygiene facilities and places to sleep.

Recent strikes on infrastructure and bases have left many Guards and Basij personnel sleeping in the streets, and in some areas they have had access to only one meal a day.

According to informed sources, some personnel were forced to buy food from shops and restaurants with their own money after expired rations were distributed.

At the same time, disruptions affecting Bank Sepah’s electronic systems have reportedly delayed the salaries and benefits of military personnel, fueling fresh anger and mistrust within the ranks.

Iran International had previously reported similarly dire conditions in field units, including severe shortages of ammunition, water and food, as well as growing desertions by exhausted soldiers.

Even in the Guards’ missile units, which have historically received priority treatment, sources reported serious communications failures and food shortages. They said commanders were continuing to send only technical components needed to keep missile systems operational, rather than food or basic individual supplies for personnel.

majority of missile cities are still operating

Missile launch volume is down ~90% from the beginning days of the war.

Millions of dollars of damage to all US assets in the gulf

Iran has taken $150-200 billion dollars in damage, to its assets, and also economy.

Their entire missile manufacturing supply chain was destroyed, with the destruction of both the Parchin Military Complex and Khojir Missile Production Center, they have no ability to produce more. The Iranian missile problem was one of the primary causes of this conflict.

Both the Mobarakeh Steel & Khuzestan Steel factories have shut down. They are responsible for 1% of Iran's GDP, and billions of dollars of profits which fund the Iranian economy.

If there were no ceasefire, Iranian power and petroleum facilities would be destroyed today. Both sides do not want this to happen, because it would set back the Iranian economy by a decade, and cause an enormous humanitarian crisis.

It is not possible to run a modern economy without fuel or electricity.

Multiple US air crafts damaged and many wounded

Iran lost its entire air force, and navy; losses are far higher on the Iranian side than US/Israeli.

So far, the US/Israel have not lost any ability to continue combat operations; they can maintain this level of bombardment for months.

It is not possible to run an advanced economy, capable of manufacturing missiles and drones at scale, under perpetual bombardment.

BobbyJo• 4 months ago

No regime change, IRGC is stronger than ever

Pretty sure they've seen better days

jatora2• 4 months ago

yikes

anigbrowl• 4 months ago

Perhaps stop taking the administration's claims at face value. Their army has not been destroyed. They continue to launch missiles daily and have been extraordinarily successful in targeting US/Israel radar and defensive assets throughout the region. They have suffered air force and naval losses, but if you look back at analysis from before the war started, exactly nobody considered the Iranian air force or navy to be of any strategic significance. Iran operates on a distributed military structure rather than a centralized command, so the assassination of senior political and military leaders is not the crippling blow the US expected it to be.

And really, that expectation is itself stupid. Suppose the US got involved in a hot conventional war with another superpower, and in the first week they killed the President, the vice President, a bunch of Representatives and Senators, and a bunch of senior figures at the Pentagon. Would the US just fold, or would it fill those positions via the line of succession, declare a national emergency, and fight back vigorously? You know the answer is #2, and the idea that other countries might do the same thing should not be a surprise. It appears the US administration has fallen into the trap of believing the shallowest version of its own propaganda about other countries, and assuming that Iran was just like Iraq under Saddam Hussein but with slightly different outfits.

The Iranian strategy is basically Mohammed Ali's Rope-a-dope: absorb punishment administered at exhausting cost (very expensive munitions with limited stocks) while spending relatively little of their own (dirt cheap drones with small payloads but effective targeting, continually degrading the aggressor's radar visibility and military infrastructure). The one limited ground incursion so far (ostensibly to rescue an airman, but almost certainly a cover for something else) resulted in the loss of multiple heavy transport aircraft, helicopters, and drones at a cost of hundred$ of million$.

GorbachevyChase2• 4 months ago

In your hypothetical scenario of the US losing its political leadership, we would probably be better off.

AuthAuth2• 4 months ago

in 2 years they'll have 100x the drone production and chinese anti ship missles

daliusd16• 4 months ago

In 2 years Hormuz will not matter potentially. You can’t win with the same strategy twice.

abustamam8• 4 months ago

Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled

According to whom? POTUS claimed to have done this back in June 2025.

lokar• 4 months ago

You think the US could destroy the regime, but has not? Can you explain? How would this work?

JeremyNT2• 4 months ago

In most wars, everybody loses.

The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils. And by those standards they seem to be succeeding.

So now we have a pointless war that has resulted in thousands of dead with no tangible benefit to anybody, except of course those cronies of the administration doing insider trading.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

This is not pointless. It exists to exchange a future nuclear war with Iran with a conventional war today.

The US and Israel can fight a conventional war with Iran. In a nuclear war, Israel would be destroyed by nuclear missiles in the two days. The possibility of a nuclear Iran is an existential crisis for Israel, and Israel will do anything possible to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.

Most people do not comprehend this conventional war is happening today, (with unclear goals), to prevent a nuclear one in the future.

8note13• 4 months ago

The best Iran could hope for given its inevitable defeat by a far superior aggressor was to deny the invader any kind of spoils

clearly not, they had an already planned goal to remove the american ability to impose sanctions, and implemented the plan, while sufferjng a ton of losses to personel and materiel.

this is a major improvement from where the US could impose sanctions and states would comply. surviving iranians are in a much better position now than before the war

daliusd16• 4 months ago

I think you are right. Leadership vacuum will not resolve by itself: Iran either will go democratic way or into some internal fights (this one more probable IMHO).

n1b0m• 4 months ago

Before the war, Ships passed freely through the strait, and Iran did not profit from it.

US gas was affordable, keeping not only passenger vehicle fuel low, but farming costs and groceries/ transporting goods in US.

Trump then claims Iran is dangerous and building nukes and is a threat, despite IAEA reports to the contrary.

At Geneva, Iran offers to hand over all their uranium. Trump refuses.

Hours later trump starts bombing Iran.

Iran closes the strait to choke US economy.

US fuel costs skyrocket affecting CPI basket.

Trump demands they open the strait, and makes threat if they don’t.

Iran now says “okay, we will open it if u stop bombing us but now we will charge 2million fee for vessels passage”.

Now US fuel remains high, an additional fee is in place, and Iran keeps their uranium.

No regime change. No uranium shift. Just a major inflation spike to the US (and global) economies. Oh, and Iran gains full control of the strait.

Art of the deal

8note13• 4 months ago

Your entire formal military apparatus was destroyed, nuclear sites in rubble, defense industrial complex leveled, two levels of leadership KIA

the same thing the media keeps asking trump: what do these things matter?

there's a meaningful change to iran's negotiating position basically forever into the future: the US cannot impose sanctions without also banning states from using the strait, and its clear what states will choose between the two. I still dont think they care about nukes, but now they can keep enriching as much uranium as they want to 60% and they can use that as a negotiation chip for something else.

the US and israel are not nearly the threats they were a month ago, not just iran has paid the costs of war

the real problem for iran is that now they actually have to deliver good stuff for their citizens - for all the western bluster, its still a democracy, and they do have to hydrate their population

jillesvangurp• 4 months ago

That's asymmetric warfare basically. The regime is more or less intact. There are no US booths on the ground. And Iran just demonstrated it can majorly disrupt international energy markets by blocking the strait of Hormuz more or less indefinitely. With a major power like the US seemingly unable to prevent that or put a stop to it militarily.

Painting this as a victory for Iran would be a stretch. But they definitely did not lose either.

This is something that keeps on happening to the US. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. are all conflicts where the US won militarily and then had to withdraw anyway. Vietnam is still ruled by the communists, Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban once more, and the regime in Iraq is nominally Iran supported and not exactly on the best of terms with the US either. This conflict seems to be a repeat of past mistakes. The US went in, bombed the shit out of stuff for a few weeks and only then steps back to literally think "Now what?!". It could have done that a few months ago and saved us all the trouble of having to deal with this BS.

Painting this as a US victory is also quite a stretch. Iran never really posed a credible military threat beyond its borders. Nor did Afghanistan or Iraq. I think China might consider this a win though. And they definitely pose a non trivial military threat. Some historians might end up arguing the US took some long term strategic hits here for essentially very little meaningful gains. And we'll see in November how Republicans fare on the economic aftermath of what you might describe as a gigantic cluster f** at this point.

zmmmmm• 4 months ago

They've frustrated the biggest military on the planet to the point of issuing expletives. It's a huge moral win. Symbolism matters more than anything else in these situations.

delis-thumbs-7e6• 4 months ago

Stop watching Fox. You are completely misinformed on global politics.

citrin_ru6• 4 months ago

is an impotent threat of attacking ships?

It not that impotent. Attacking civilan targets in the age of drones is not that hard - a small motor boat with explosives or a shahed style drone is all you need. And to keep the strait closed they don't need to attack all ships. Even 0.1% probability of an attack (maybe even 0.01%) is enough to halt the traffic. And they don't need to sink the ship - a fire on board is enough to create an unacceptable security risk for tankers and LNG carriers.

It was a while since Houthis attacked any ships and yet traffic via Suez is still 60% down from what is was befor attacks started in 2023. Because the risk of an attack is not zero.

straydusk• 4 months ago

Have you missed the lessons of the last 25 years of US involvement in the middle east I guess?

anthonybsd• 4 months ago

impotent threat of attacking ships

Seeing diehard MAGAs in these comment threads is always so amusing. Clearly Agent Orange didn't think the threat was impotent if he crawled on his knees to negotiation table hastened by dire predictions of impending economic collapse but you somehow think it was "impotent" ? Astonishing :)

smcnc10• 4 months ago

We’re both #DudesForKamala

sleepyguy• 4 months ago

America surrenders...hehehe.....Looks like Trump basically agreed to all 10 points (Truth and Social post).

tristanj29• 4 months ago

I disagree. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare. China and Pakistan told Iran to come to the table, and negotiate, because they do not want a collapsed Iran.

Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, run a financial economy, pay salaries, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots.

Iran would collapse, within a week. It would devolve into factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.

The US and Israel have been sitting on this card the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

8note13• 4 months ago

Its not yet clear who blinked, really.

they dont want to do that attack, because Iran can still respond in kind, and both Israel and the US have some value in electricity, oil, and water existing around the gulf and in Israel.

if you make Iran pay that war cost ahead of time, what are you gonna negotiate for after?

maxglute3• 4 months ago

Now reason without water, aka Israeli + GCC desalination. Iran with shit water situation is still less existentially water stressed. Iran 5% vs others 80/90%+ dependency on desalination = once Iran demonstrated survivable regional strike complex, they own the top end of escalation ladder that can take out everyone with them while coming out least harmed.

This not to mention, relative to US performance / conemps, i.e. going back to standoff munitions, there's not really enough discretionary high end munitions to take degrade all Iranian infra vs Iran has enough in reserve to take out all regional desalination. Nevermind US expending 1000s more TLAMs / JASSM(ER)s leaving it unprepared for any other near peer conflict. Reminder Iraq was 20% size of Iran, and so far US+Israel only flew ~20% of sorties via Iran than it has Iraq. Even factoring in precision munitions, US would have to expend more munitions than it has to actually cripple Iran on par with Iraq.

zahlman8• 4 months ago

That's not at all what it says; and a higher standard of rhetoric really should be expected from comments here.

alfiedotwtf3• 4 months ago

Weird how Iran is able to come to a ceasefire when their whole leadership has been killed times over. Who exactly does Trump think he’s negotiating with?!

Unicironic• 4 months ago

It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror. The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. If winning and losing is the way you are framing this, instead of thinking about the humans that these actions affect, then we all have lost.

RiverStone32• 4 months ago

That doesn’t align with the perspective of actual Iranians I know.

There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocracy that governs the country currently.

scythe4• 4 months ago

There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

Most of them realized their mistake:

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/01/...

Iranians hoping that war and death will save them are chasing a gruesome mirage. The US has successfully liberated exactly one country by regime change since 1945: Panama in 1989. Every other intervention has either supported a rebellion (secession) instead of a revolution, or it has ended in failure (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Somalia) or a prolonged civil war (Iraq, Libya, Yemen). Anyone hoping for such a fate to befall their own country is morally compromised.

WarmWash• 4 months ago

Don't know why this is downvoted, people must forget that the weeks leading up the war, Iran was pulling the plug on the internet and shooting regime protestors in the street.

It seems Trump and Israel expected an internal revolution once the bombing started, but it doesn't seem that manifested.

tdb78932• 4 months ago

My general impression is many people want the regime destroyed, which seems clear from talking to people but also just all the protests. I haven't asked but I'm skeptical they are for things like attacking of every bridge, railroad, and power plant (which are important civilian infrastructure). The threat was specifically that their "whole civilization will die tonight"

hermannj314• 4 months ago

I have friends in the US that want the US government destroyed, there are people in the southern US that think the south won the civil war. Who cares?

Every government in all of human history has had its detractors and supporters, more detractors probably exist in expatriated communities, their existence does not really prove anything.

ebbi• 4 months ago

Was one of them BBC, who quoted one Iranian resident as saying they were ok with the US nuking Iran, and then quietly removing that bit from the quotes with no note that the article was edited?

samrus12• 4 months ago

Those people didnt lose faith in the US after it bombed a preschool? At one point you have to wonder if this is good versus evil or evil versus evil

helo43629• 4 months ago

Source please. How to get informed opinion on what the actual iran people feel.

It seems from new media the support for khameni family has increased after the leader was killed.

NalNezumi2• 4 months ago

Your perspectives of Iranians seems to be too biased, given also that you have partner from Iran and confess that you "only" talk to their inlaws and friends.

The Iranian diaspora is more divided on the matter than you think [1], and given your background, you're probably in the bubble of the diaspora that wouldn't mind sending threatening messages to anyone not being completely aligned with anti regime stance.

It's like someone marrying a deep south confederate flag waving MAGA American, moving there, and judging from talking to their friends and their hate for everything not MAGA, conclude that every American is like this. Or same scenario but California and liberals.

[1] https://www.culanth.org/fieldsights/on-unity-fragmentation-i...

yodsanklai2• 4 months ago

They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

Did they also want Trump to destroy the whole civilization and have the country back to stone age like he claimed he would do?

benterix• 4 months ago

There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

And how he would do that, exactly?

panick21_2• 4 months ago

Destroying infrastructure and making live hell for normal people does not remove the regime. When will people learn that air-wars don't magically change governments?

Also, the Iranians you likely hear, are not representative. I don't think most people who depend on energy and water don't want that infrastructure destroyed.

littlestymaar6• 4 months ago

There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

That's the diaspora's luxury. They don't have to endure the pain of the conflict or sanctions, and they always end up being the biggest hardliners for that reason.

citrin_ru6• 4 months ago

They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime.

It would require a large scale ground operation which is off the table. A few more weeks of air strikes would not have destroyed the regime anyway but a few more weeks of asymmetric strikes (when Iran strikes its neighbors because it can do little about the US/Israel) would have destroyed gulf oil infrastructure inflicting lasting economic pain on the whole world.

ruszki• 4 months ago

I’ve never seen an example when foreign news really reported what people think on the ground. Especially because people on the ground usually lie. For example in Hungary, the voters of the current “opposition” prime minister candidate would tell you that they vote for him because they want democracy. Yet, they haven’t cared about that for more than a decade. Even when the real reason: inflation was obvious that it would be enormous after the election in 2022, before the previous election. The same with the US, news across the pond doesn’t explain why people vote for Trump, I had to go to the US several times to figure that out.

aaa_aaa2• 4 months ago

Those news reports must be so trustworthy (!). They drunk the kool aid and propaganda just like Iranians of the opposite idea. But the difference is your Iranian friends probably never lived in a day in Iran.

frollogaston3• 3 months ago

That's what I hear, but it seems like pure desperation. The reality is, Israel calls the shots here, and they aren't interested in a regime change that would strengthen Iran in the long term. They weren't happy with Pahlavi either.

fernandopj3• 4 months ago

It's a win.

The largest military the world has ever known was recklessly used towards a foe against decades of internal warning not to go there. People on both sides who didn't ask for this war paid with their lives.

High gas prices might have been a great cause for it ending, but the win for the world is that a escalation towards WWIII was averted, and that even idiotic leaders have learned that the world is a complex system and there's no such thing as a far away war anymore.

blitzar6• 4 months ago

I actually think it is important to talk about winning and losing, more so when the overwhelmingly stronger party loses.

even idiotic leaders have learned

Call me a cynic, but if you are dumb enough to start the war in the first place you are too dumb to learn any lesson.

vasco• 4 months ago

It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror

Its because you're such a better person than them, wow, incredible. Nobody else knows what war is.

TiredOfLife• 4 months ago

The US threatened to obliterate a country and people

So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades

danans4• 4 months ago

> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades

That indicates that the US has become more like Iran than Iran has become like the US.

Coincidentally (or perhaps not) the US is also increasingly authoritarian and theocratic, like Iran and its regional neighbors (both friends and foes).

nslsm2• 4 months ago

The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive.

That’s not the reason. The US is an occupied government.

none2585• 4 months ago

Occupied by who exactly? We elected this government, we get what we deserve.

heresie-dabord• 4 months ago

then we all have lost.

Yes, we have lost sound leadership and stability. Pakistan has brokered the cease-fire in a war started by the US for no good reason. The current US administration was supposed to be non-interventionist.

It is hard to watch the grim spectacle of the US fallen to the point of simultaneously making despicable threats to destroy another country and sending love and best wishes at election-time to Hungary's anti-EU, pro-Russian Orban.

simonh5• 4 months ago

It is possible to deplore the human cost, while also looking at the reasons why such conflicts occur, and what the goals of those involved are.

a456463• 4 months ago

The reason of the conflict being a lunatic and spineless supporters.

hermitcrab3• 4 months ago

In a war, usually both sides lose.

tim333• 4 months ago

It's a messy situation but it basically kicked off when the Iranian people had mass protests and the government started shooting them whereupon Trump tweeted “Iranian Patriots, keep protesting – take over your institutions!!! … help is on its way" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/13/trump-promises...

Not much about gas getting expensive there. I think the recent threats were mostly hyperbole for negotiating purposes.

jacknews• 4 months ago

What a clown show.

I'm very sure that Trump just announced the ceasefire to save face and brag that his threats worked to get the strait reopened, and the whole thing will be just a ruse to regroup for further attacks.

I can't see cooler heads in Washington agreeing to these 10 points, and Israel will certainly have something to say.

If these points are agreed, it's a catastrophic strategic defeat for the US.

They already lost most of their bases in the region (13/18 I believe), and would now have to evacuate the rest. We've learned that American military is not so mighty after all.

America's reputation as upholding a rules-based world order is in the toilet.

Iran will emerge as the dominant regional power, with global leverage and a steady extra income due to their complete and accepted control of Hormuz.

The smaller states will be scrambling to find a new international security partner, and China seems like a likely candidate.

The Petro-dollar is likely toast.

I mean if Vlad Putin himself were to direct every decision Trump has made, he could scarcely have done a better job of damaging America and disrupting the world order. Making America Grotesque Again.

helo43629• 4 months ago

Why does india support iran while enemies to Palestine. Is it because of shia vs sunni sects

intensifier• 3 months ago

India supported Israel until Iran started to look like winning. Modi visited Israel right the day before Israel strike on Iran leading to this war. They never thought Iran could fight USA.

yongjik• 4 months ago

The number of comments here trying to argue that this is anything other than utter humiliation for Trump and America ...

I guess I should get used to it now. At least 1/3 of Americans will be swayed at nothing and will stand behind their beloved leader, whatever happens. I wonder what will happen to the price of oil in the coming months and whether that will cause some people to change their minds.

ahf8Aithaex7Nai• 4 months ago

I had a teacher in school who would sometimes stand at the front of the class with her hand raised and three fingers extended, announcing, “I'm going to count to three, and then you'll all be quiet!” Of course, that never worked. I never understood why she kept putting herself through that farce over and over again. Every deadline that passes without consequence is a loss of face. The same goes for Trump. He can sugarcoat it all he wants: the world sees it as a defeat. The only thing missing is him collecting shells on the beach and ordering the construction of a lighthouse.

raspasov2• 4 months ago

A reminder that both things can be true at the same time:

1. Trump is a bad president

2. The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons

chimpanzee22• 4 months ago

The Islamic Republic of Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons

Neither should Israel, right ... right?

zoklet-enjoyer3• 4 months ago

I've been calling my reps and demanding they impeach Trump and Hegseth and get in contact with Doug Burgum and get going on the 25th amendment.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

Kamala Harris would have started this exact same war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DxQTPOouU

Sometimes, it doesn't matter who you vote for.

zoklet-enjoyer3• 4 months ago

And she'd be in the wrong too. Our country is run by psychopaths.

8note13• 4 months ago

would she though?

president after president has had the choice but haven't.

the best you get from that interview is that she was unwilling to say a yes or a no. probably a no, and she's not one to make decisions on a whim based on people stroking her ego

deathanatos4• 4 months ago

There is exactly a 0% chance of the 25A happening. It will be a cold day in hell — these people worship Trump. They're not ousting him.

Impeachment would be more likely, but an impeachment conviction still seems utterly improbable. You'd need to flip a lot of seats in November, and this country is going to have forgotten all about this set of genocidal threats well before then. There's no way the current House/Senate GOP impeach, let alone convict.

get in contact with Doug Burgum

I have absolutely no idea why you think Burgum would ever support a 25A invocation against Trump.

zoklet-enjoyer3• 4 months ago

I'm from North Dakota. My reps know him. I know they're all cowards and cucked by Trump, but I'm going to keep calling them, demanding they do this, and reading insane Truth Social posts to them because I don't know what else I can do.

Burgum is a fucking disgrace to this state. I wish he'd grow some balls like the cowboy character he sometimes cosplays as and stand up to Trump. I wish my cucked reps would do the same.

karim798• 4 months ago

I'm putting this[0] here just as a reminder of how horrible things can be and for basically nothing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack

acyou• 4 months ago

I used to attend elementary school on a military base. I didn't feel like a human shield at the time, then again I was more naive and had less life experience than I do now.

tw043• 4 months ago

You weren’t a human shield. It would have been very easy for the US and Israel to not have blown up a school, the attack was intentional.

Notice they had 0 issues precisely striking the building housing Iranian leadership when this whole thing started. They didn’t “accidentally” hit the grocery store two blocks away.

trhway6• 4 months ago

Today on several news media were a story that people of Iran were called by the government and formed human shields at the bridges and power plants that Trump threatened to bomb if no deal reached by the deadline.

https://www.ms.now/news/iran-youths-protect-power-plants-sau...

Sounds like a blatant violation of all the conventions and a war crime.

noosphr2• 4 months ago

This is the counter argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres

Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.

JumpCrisscross11• 4 months ago

This is the counter argument

When the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, they didn't shore bombard the colonists' kids because it would have been bad and counterproductive.

hrimfaxi• 4 months ago

How is this in any way a counter argument to the US bombing a school? That their own government would stoop to such lengths gives free reign to foreign governments?

lern_too_spel• 4 months ago

The counter argument is missing some justification. Is it reasonable to go killing people on the hope that something good will come out of it? Is there no less violent way to achieve those objectives? Do we really think that people will organize a toppling while they're being bombed without Internet access? Do we think they'll topple the current regime for one that is less antagonistic to Israel and the US after the bombings?

8note13• 4 months ago

i dont imagine spending a bunch on the military and oil is nearly enough to topple the US government.

what case does it make that the constitution needs to be abandoned?

pphysch5• 4 months ago

This is black propaganda, not a counterargument.

At most there were a couple thousand casualties from violent riots that involved armed gangs (or sleeper cells if you want to go that route).

There were not "60,000" peaceful protestors executed by the government, as Trump claimed yesterday without evidence. That is murderous propaganda, blood libel intended to deflect from the actual mass murder of civilians by American forces e.g. the Minab school.

It was a narrative specifically designed to induce comments like yours.

stouset• 4 months ago

The American commander in chief was, as of yesterday, vowing to end their entire civilization.

mindslight• 4 months ago

Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.

It's looking like this is the exact type of magical thinking of the most useless "president" ever. Meanwhile in the real world, such things take hard work.

KennyBlanken2• 4 months ago

Aside from the fact that the events you linked to have no connection whatsoever to why the US started attacking Iran, there is absolutely no reality or moral code in which "a government kills a couple hundred of its citizens" justifies another government on the other side of the world blowing up a hundred plus schoolchildren and other civilians.

stickfigure• 4 months ago

for basically nothing

* The people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters are now dead.

* The IRGC's military capability is significantly degraded.

* Their nuclear program is likely set back even further. It's hard to get real information here but we should assume that supporting facilities were high on the target list.

That's not nothing. From a strict utilitarian perspective, it's probably "worth it". Which sucks, but I haven't heard a better plan.

8note13• 4 months ago

i dont think those are nearly as clearcut as suggested.

some of the iranian side for events that resulted in a bunch of death have been killed... while also killing a bunch mkre iranians, but have the americans/israelis that armed the protestors into terrorists and incided them to violence been killed?

i think theres enough police, mossad, and cia folks left to do that again and again until the protestors are all gone.

similarly, its blatantly obvious for everyone that the US destoryed the iranian capabilities that dont matter. iran is still capable enough to seter both putting american ships in the strait, and boots on the ground, so that degradation is not significant. optimization without profiling.

from a strict utilitarian perspective, definitely not worth it. the costs were extraordinarily expensive and havent been fully paid yet, and the profits for the US is a worse position than they started it

theres some light benefits to the gulf and ukraine in that the gulf realizes that they can spend much less on defense by buying from ukraine, but that pales in comparison to the costs paid in destroyed oil infrastructure and interceptors that could have gone to ukraine

RiverStone32• 4 months ago

My wife is Iranian and I know many Iranian expats, and all my in-laws are in Iran.

This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime.

Yes. People die in war. It’s sad. But most Iranians will say “whether we go to war or not Iranians are being killed” and it’s better to fight for regime change than to just accept the status quo.

Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed? Yes, people die in war, but if there’s a chance for something better than it’s definitely worth it!

Every Iranian I know thinks it’s worth it and they danced in the street when Khamenei was killed.

anonymous_user9• 4 months ago

Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed?

What was so great about the American revolution anyway? It's not like it gave any average people the right to vote, and it arguably preserved slavery for an extra 30 years.

tuna742• 4 months ago

"This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime."

The US government is not in any way responsible for the murder of protesters in Iran. That is done entirely by the government in Iran.

The USA and Israel ARE responsible for the murder of the kids (and adults) in that school. If you are American or Israeli you can care about the murdered protesters, but it it not really your responsibility. The murdered kids are however.

axus• 4 months ago

Peace in our time!

hdivider2• 4 months ago

Let me articulate the thing which I believe is on many people's minds:

What is the chance the president will order a nuclear strike on Iran as this war proceeds?

We would hope the odds are vanishingly small, because doing so would be profoundly disadvantageous. But the same was true for initiating this war in the first place. The logic -- such as it is -- of some people in power may lead them to conclude once more that shock and awe can succeed. We've already struck the country with powerful conventional weapons at scale and it has not led to a weakening of Iranian resolve.

All the above said, my personal hope of course is this will never happen. I'm curious what other folks think however.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

No chance. A nuclear strike on Iran won't achieve anything that a large number of conventional strikes would.

bkishan• 4 months ago

Wouldn't*

aschla• 4 months ago

You're assuming the current president operates on rationale. He simply would love to be the guy who uses a tactical nuke.

Ntrails• 4 months ago

My real question is not whether it would achieve anything meaningful, but what would be the side effects of such a strike on allies in the region.

I don't have a remotely decent mental model of fallout etc from modern nuclear weapons - my assumptions are they're still toxic enough to be a bloody terrible idea anywhere near someone you like.

majani2• 4 months ago

The shock and awe from a nuclear strike is unmatched

pkilgore• 4 months ago

Did the USA just lose a war to fucking Iran?

wnevets• 4 months ago

So before this war the strait was open and now it's gonna reopen? So much progress!

wileydragonfly• 4 months ago

Clown world.

IAmGraydon• 4 months ago

The fact that so many people on this thread believe any of this is real is really a sobering reminder. The entire thing, top to bottom, is theater.

gib4442• 4 months ago

To which extent exactly? The images of destruction are faked?

I know what you're saying just not sure how literally to take your words

torlok2• 4 months ago

The talks are theater. Trump is running around like a headless chicken, so it may look like a lot of "diplomacy" is happening, but if you look at the Iranian side, they remain in control over the strait, and their demands haven't changed. The fact that Iran agreed to talk is because Trump caved-in enough.

mandeepj2• 4 months ago

I call the orange guy many things! I believe he's an accidental president. DNC screwed up big time both times. The stakes were higher than ever, so they could have played it safe by looking at past elections, but nope. They wanted to write history, but got the other guy to do it.

Bush (reminder: a republican) screwed things so bad that the country opened to something that had never happened before - A black President.

Now, orange guy (again, a republican, see the pattern) has screwed, and I'm not sure where his bottom is, will set the country to accept again something that hasn't happened before - A Woman President; maybe a black one. There's still time until the 2028 general election.

Also, what do conservatives conserve? They conserve their brains by not using them. Don't take my word; just look at the history, what they have done so far! They are the same everywhere - be it the US or India - same hate mongering lunatics!

worthless-trash• 4 months ago

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't allowing them to collect a tax on transit pretty much continue to fund themselves to continue this bullshittery forever.

Bad behavior can't be encouraged.

karim798• 4 months ago

If Israel actually stops attacking Iran, that will be a win for the world. Will it happen? I doubt it. The last thing Netanyahu wants is a ceasefire or diplomacy. I think even if Trump tells him to stop he'll keep going.

The furniture salesman knows he's in trouble for the all the illegal gifts he has received and all the other horrific crimes he has committed. He'll hold on for as long as he can. The world be damned.

holografix• 4 months ago

This is basically a win for Iran.

1. They replaced the decrepit Khameini with a much younger and more formidable Khameini.

2. “Pulled a Ukraine” vs the US showing defiance and have now rallied any wavering regime supporters against the American and Jewish “devils”.

3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.

4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if anyone messes with them they’ll close the straight. Then gas prices go up. Then your own domestic pop gets pissed. Then your chances of re-election drop.

5. Destabilised the whole region costing the ME lots and lots of money.

Nursie• 4 months ago

Yup, and it's a demonstration that the US is unable to just impose its will wherever it wants, making the US look weaker.

Failure all around.

But no doubt Trump and his people will tell the world what an amazing success the whole thing was, and how they exceeded all their goals, whatever those goals might have been.

ekr• 4 months ago

I think you're mostly right, except maybe a bit misinformed on #1. The younger Khamenei is, according to recent reports, in a very unstable condition, has likely never actually had an input on the leadership of Iran so far, and his future state is uncertain.

So I think there will be another leader elected soon.

alsetmusic2• 4 months ago

I think you're mostly right, except maybe a bit misinformed on #1. The younger Khamenei is, according to recent reports, in a very unstable condition, has likely never actually had an input on the leadership of Iran so far, and his future state is uncertain. So I think there will be another leader elected soon.

What does that have to do with anything? The USA (my country, sadly) provoked a far smaller nation and was proved incapable of dominance.

Trump will claim victory, but it's not what they thought they'd get.

locknitpicker3• 4 months ago

So I think there will be another leader elected soon.

That alone is another clear sign of Iran's ruling regime emerging as the clear victor. Not only there was no regime change but also their primary regional and global antagonists tried their hardest and completely failed to overthrow them.

Moreover, some neighboring countries who were in the US sphere of influence were very quick to fold and remove themselves from the conflict, while others saw their primary economy attacked by Iran and helplessly so.

Forget about Iranian regime's internal opposition. So did the US.

Is there any question on who emerged the clear winner?

citrin_ru6• 4 months ago

So I think there will be another leader elected soon.

Maybe not soon. The power now has shifted from mullah to IRGC commanders and they likely will want to keep it while having Khamenei as a figurehead.

woah• 4 months ago

much younger and more formidable Khameini

Formidable?

emkoemko• 4 months ago

more crazy then his father is what i hear

dismalaf5• 4 months ago

There will be a 2 week ceasefire, western countries will move ships out of the straight, the Saudis will reroute oil, the 10 point plan is idiotic and the US will have an easy excuse to resume bombing them.

antoniojtorres• 4 months ago

Reroute where? Nonsense. If that was the case then the tensions wouldn’t be this high.

01100011• 4 months ago

I don't think we know if the ceasefire will hold or if it's another attempt by trump at strategic delay/deception, but remember that the strait carries a lot more than oil and those things cannot be transported via a pipeline.

M95D4• 4 months ago

I agree with you that this is just temporary, but for entirely different reasons. I think that stock market fluctuations are making some people very very rich. It's the same game as they did with the tariffs on/off every week and it's not over yet.

Yoric5• 4 months ago

Still looking at the details, but this morning, one of the biggest French newspapers was basically headlining (a slightly more polite version of) TACO.

Not a good image for the US around the world, including its (former?) allies, I guess.

bestouff• 4 months ago

What's à good image of the US nowadays ? Artemis maybe. That's all.

azinman2• 4 months ago

Would a better image be destroying the power plants and water desalination of 90M people?

roncesvalles5• 4 months ago

We are in an era of clickbait; mainstream media tends to be sycophantic to the views of its readers.

jayd162• 4 months ago

I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases. Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements. I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.

Again, not a fan of the situation and while I think it is the US's loss I do not really see how it is a win for Iran.

jauco• 4 months ago

It’s not the ME countries who are profiting, because they can’t export. So it’s a net loss. (Saudi and oman win a bit, but in no comparison to the iraq kuwait loss)

The winners are mostly: Russia, Iran itself and (margibally) the US. But mostly Russia.

fatbird3• 4 months ago

$2MM per tanker for safe passage is an extra $100 billion a year in revenue, which is peanuts next to the world's de facto acknowledgement that Iran now has sovereign control of the Strait of Hormuz and can charge whatever it wants. The ceasefire also includes lifting all sanctions on Iran, and notably says nothing about its nuclear program, which becomes de facto acceptance of its right to continue it to its logical endpoint of Iran becoming a nuclear power.

Before this started, it was impossible to imagine that Iran could achieve all this. It's hard to how this isn't a massive win for Iran.

darkoob12• 4 months ago

The Islamic regem lost all its legitimacy in Jan. Even some loyalist where angry at them but they gain support of part of the people and found a reason to exist as the defender of the country.

They will survive and become stronger particularly if they get an economic lifeline out of this peace deal.

locknitpicker3• 4 months ago

(...) another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.

I'm afraid you are yet to experience the real impact of this war. The actual effect of closing the strait hasn't hit your wallet yet. It's a repeat of the same old tariff bullshit.

Also, Iran did inflicted heavy damage on some of the infrastructure of US's allies. You will start to feel that in a few months.

The only party that clearly stood to benefit from this event was Putin's regime. Orban is not the only vassal at his command.

ElProlactin6• 4 months ago

I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases.

Oil spiked over 40% at its peak and US gas prices are up 25-35%, and that's before things got to the point where there were "real" supply issues. I don't know how you can reasonably consider this "mild".

Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements.

Everyone and their brother has known that the US can assassinate virtually any world leader if it really wants to. The question you haven't answered is: to what end?

I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices.

Notwithstanding the fact that this situation only increases the attractiveness of oil alternatives, you're missing a few points, including:

1. If oil prices rise too much, too fast, it leads to demand destruction. Nobody captures the higher profits for long because the global economy falls into recession if oil stays above a certain price point.

2. Price stability is just as important as price.

3. Significant long-term damage was done to oil infrastructure and Iran demonstrated how easily infrastructure can be effectively targeted despite all of the advantages its neighbors have in terms of American support, American defense technology, etc.

Your comment also doesn't consider the geopolitical costs of this "excursion". The administration's actions have further alienated America's strongest allies (except for Israel) and added fuel to the "America is undependable" fire. This is good news for China:

https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/04/05/china-overta...

China surpassed the United States in global leadership approval ratings last year, as Donald Trump's second administration began its term in earnest, according to a new Gallup survey.
The polling firm reported Thursday that the median global approval rating for Chinese leadership stood at 36% in its 2025 world survey, exceeding the 31% recorded for U.S. leadership. It marked the first time in 20 years that China's approval rating topped that of the United States by more than 5 percentage points.

myvoiceismypass2• 4 months ago

The $2m toll per strait crossing, at 120 ships a day, is going to pay dividends in perpetuity for them. Their economic situation is now actually better than it was pre-war.

abdelhousni• 4 months ago

You weren't paying attention because that's what the US does since decades... Just now it impacts Western countries directly (Ukraine and Iran come to mind)

wesleywt• 4 months ago

The US have been removing leaders for decades.

mrtksn2• 4 months ago

That's not a US specific strength though, anybody with the ability to strike someone with shorter range than theirs can do that. I.e. Netherland can destabilize South America through attacking Panama and its very unlikely that Netherlands will be bombed.

Sure, when US Brazil etc. are pissed off enough, Netherland can just TACO like the US did.

China and Russia can do the exactly same thing to Iran too and Iran won't be bombing Moscow or Beijing either.

It might demonstrate madness though, which in same cases can be useful.

prabubio• 4 months ago

US, in the past (eg - iraq) has shown that it can destabilize a region without any effects to the US, not even a mild price increase domestically. So this one is a big degradation from that earlier stance.

Ms-J• 4 months ago

Why isn't Iran doing more? It seems like they are pandering to the USA when they have the moral high ground.

refurb11• 4 months ago

Moral high ground? They lost it long ago when they were hanging people for being gay and sponsoring terrorist groups.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

I disagree. Iran was about to lose. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare.

Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, pay salaries, run a business, have running water, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food, people will starve; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots bigger than the ones seen in January.

The Iranian government would have no ability to coordinate a response, and Iran would collapse within a week. The country would devolve into chaos, into paramilitary factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.

The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war through this outcome.

krainboltgreene4• 4 months ago

The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

That is such an incredible interpretation of the situation that basically requires you to ignore basically every economic problem being faced from this insanity currently and in the near future.

Sure, the US an Israel were just "too concerned" about the Iranian economy to do war crimes.

nicbou7• 4 months ago

They did not manage to bomb Germany, North Korea, or North Vietnam into submission and they tried for years. Winning through bombing alone has never worked.

techterrier• 4 months ago

It never had any ability to prevent an indiscriminate bombing campaign, and never did. And nobody ever thought otherwise.

It only ever had to prove it could keep the strait closed. Which it did. And now the americans are going away, and they can get back to hanging students from cranes.

The USA has failed to achieve any of its strategic goals, and is going home, defeated.

esseph2• 4 months ago

If the US ended up damaging power plans and desalination plants, that would mark a clear inflection point in the number of "friends" the US has militarily, economically, and politically. Sure, Israel would still be a big fan, and maybe Saudi Arabia, but otherwise the US would become a pariah.

It would be damaging to Iran and potentially hundreds of thousands or millions would die.

That's a lot of blood debts.

There is no way the US would walk away from that situation into a better outcome.

7952• 4 months ago

The Iranian military is very decentralised and designed specifically with American capabilities in mind. So am not sure they would collapse. And a defending force is far less dependent on logistics in the short term. Also, Iran has a culture of sacrifice.

Iran and the US exist in a state of equilibrium of opposite strategies. The US is unwilling to risk its troops and sees sacrifice as weakness but otherwise applies maximal pressure. And Iran is willing to sacrifice its citizens and sees that as noble. And outside of a black swan event there is little hope of change.

Each side sees its enemies greatest military strength as a moral weakness and will keep fighting. Whilst conversely believing that sacrifice/maximal remote force may someday work. Iranians are not going to pivot because their culture has been forged as a response to exactly this kind of pressure. Nor will America suddenly see the sacrifices of thousands of it's men as virtuous. So things probably just revert back to the same equilibrium.

The point is that America blowing up power plants and Iran absorbing casualties is just an extension of the status quo.

gambutin2• 4 months ago

Let’s discuss this again in two weeks. I suggest.

This ceasefire will defuse the global economy’s tensions. That’s its sole purpose.

It’s unlikely they’ll find enough common ground for a lasting agreement.

thisisit3• 4 months ago

I'd say more like a loss for the US than a win for Iran.

4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if anyone messes with them they’ll close the straight. Then gas prices go up. Then your own domestic pop gets pissed. Then your chances of re-election drop.

Everyone knew from the beginning that closing the strait was something Iran would do. But it is current US government that is either inept or too smart for their own good and thought with US producing surplus oil for domestic use, it will not impact them. They didn't care for the consequences and it came back to bite them.

Also, wasn't it that even if the war was stop/ceasefire oil prices will take a long time to recover? If that is true the domestic pop getting pissed might be true even with this ceasefire and it will hurt the current government in their upcoming elections.

3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.

More like galvanized people against a common enemy. Regime is going to come down hard on the protestors than ever before and some might find it easier to blame the power which claimed to deliver the regime change. Then Americans will talk about how Iranians hate their way of life and the attack was justified.

_heimdall4• 4 months ago

thought with US producing surplus oil for domestic use

I have to assume that at least someone in the room was well aware that all oil is not created equal and that US refineries were designed from the beginning for Venezuelan and similar oil rather than US oil.

4ndrewl• 4 months ago

The real winners are those psychic commodities/future traders and the arms industry. Again.

smdz• 4 months ago

This war (not the ceasefire) is basically a loss for the USA. Many people don't yet grasp the scale of the reputational, economic, and power damage that has occurred and will continue to occur.

littlestymaar6• 4 months ago

The US foreign policy has perfected the art of turning a stream of tactical victories into a strategic defeat.

They used to spend years to do that, now they managed to do it in just over a month.

BatteryMountain• 4 months ago

Just the attack on data centers has caused certain conversations in my circles that basically comes to down to some guys will try to get off of foreign clouds and into local hosting in their own countries (most seems keen for co-location hosting because of the static ip ranges & other admin sugar and reliable power; not concerned about hardware pricing as the hardware is less than 10% of the equation). All thanks to a couple attacks on data centers that we are not even hosting on.

maxglute3• 4 months ago

More loss for US, as in customary US not winning fast is functionally the same as losing.

Heavy weight boxing a teen it should have brained in round 1.

Teen lands a few punches back is embarrassing.

Teen slapping heavy weights protectorates more embarrassing.

Teen surviving week 4 is like heavy weight failing to brain teen by round 7.

At this point it's looking like we're going to round 10 TKO, whoever "wins", US loses. People still going to wank over if US wins on TKO because muh K:D ratio or something, but real signal is teen's strategy was to survive hits and ultimately 10000s of heavy weight hits weren't haymaker strong enough to brain a teen. At >2% of GDP of PRC, Iran is basically teen/toddler territory that drew down significant % of US active force and munition stockpiles, so there's also layer of US losing more based on relative effort expended.

actionfromafar4• 4 months ago

To China, the conflict is a clear demonstration of the impotency of the US war machine. Before this "military operation", one could imagine the US defending Taiwan.

Now, it's a laughable thought. It couldn't even if it wanted to.

refurb11• 4 months ago

This is in no way a win for Iran.

Hundreds of regime leadership is gone. Massive destruction of infrastructure. Bombed all their neighbors who weren’t even at war with them. Pushed those same neighbors into closer partnership with Israel and the US.

Now the regime is severely weakened.

intended• 4 months ago

This would make sense if the regime command structure had apparently not designed itself for this exact type of conflict.

They were in a fight, took losses, and made significant gains.

They proved their planning was correct, that the distributed nature of their power grid was correct, that they are able to project force and genuinely destabilize the strait.

Things have been proven that were previously uncertain, and they have not been proven in America’s favour.

Crucially America’s ability to defend its allies was tested and found wanting. The entire conflict was of unit economics, in that a cheap 30k drone beat out billion dollar investments.

America also spent the better part of this administration alienating themselves from the one allied nation with extensive drone combat experience.

thejohnconway4• 4 months ago

None of those things matter if they survive and control the straight, which seems to be the situation. The toll revenue will be enough to rebuild several times over. They have proven that they can absolutely crush the gulf states with missiles and drones.

I think the fact that Trump accepted their 10-point plan as the basis for negotiation, instead of them accepting the American 15-point plan, makes it obvious this is America taking the loss.

dgellow2• 4 months ago

Also, I would expect Iran cultural influence to continue to grow in its region. And they now have the strait toll as a new source of revenue.

Note that it is also a win for Israel, so far. They are still invading Lebanon with no plans to stop.

And a clear loss for the US who literally got nothing from that whole thing and triggered a massive global crisis

watwut5• 4 months ago

3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them.

More like: Reminded the anti regime population that US has no interest to help them and will happily kill all Iranians and proudly destroy all of civil infrastructure.

5. Destabilised the whole region costing the ME lots and lots of money.

In this case, the destabilization is firmly the fault of USA and Israel.

andai• 4 months ago

Parable of the sun and the wind..

ropable• 4 months ago

It's very hard for me to see this war (regardless of final outcome) as anything other than a massive strategic loss for the USA. The US has spent a stunning amount of materiel and political capital to achieve nothing of lasting benefit to themselves, and have killed thousands while further destabilising and impoverishing the region. A catastrophic outcome.

It's absolutely possible for both sides in a major conflict to lose, and they've managed to do so in this case.

znnajdla• 4 months ago

6. Permanently destroyed many US bases and radar installations in the Middle East which aren’t coming back anytime soon.

Invictus04• 4 months ago

Only on hacker news is the destruction of all your military hardware and the death of all your leaders a win

deadbabe• 4 months ago

Those can be replaced. The damage to US reputation and influence will last the rest of our lives.

Revanche13672• 4 months ago

Not just HN, just about all social media except far-right Trumpist echo-chambers have been calling it a Iran win or at least a US loss.

mrguyorama2• 4 months ago

Buddy France lost it's country and still won WW2

It's the war, not the battle.

Balgair• 4 months ago

Aside:

We should not make fun of both of these lying cheating idiots in charge of either faction.

Look, it's really easy to dunk on them, like super easy. This is a very dumb war and will continue to be so, we all can see that.

But both sides are in a escalate-to-deescalate trap. Neither wants to back down in order to save face. So they can only make things worse.

And things can get a lot worse.

Lots of people legitimately thought that Tehran was going to be a glowing hole by the time you are reading this. That would have been ~17 million lives wiped out. A ground war is a generation in each country that is just decimated like Ukraine is seeing. Already there has been far too much death and destruction, too many children that are now without parents, too many parents now without children.

If avoiding that means not dunking on these barbarous morons for a little while, so be it, a small price.

I know that some random internet comments are about as important as the fly on a horse's ass is to a hurricane, but it has to start somewhere.

I'm not saying we should not hold them to account. No, this mess is maybe something that will snap everyone out of it, it's already so dumb and bad. They deserve, like we all do, the best justice we can give them. And it will not be kind to either side, we all know that.

But, let them have this win. Do the best we can to encourage others to let both sides walk away from this horrible trap. If the do so scot free, hey, that's a win in all of our books.

Let Donny strut about, walk away. Stop it with the TACO nonsense. Let him feel like a big man, a winner, whatever his little pudding brain needs.

Just let the war end before it gets even more out of hand.

Before even more babies have only pictures and stories to know their father by.

goranmoomin• 4 months ago

TBH as an outsider, I am just so frustrated on Trump deciding that US invading Iran large scale is a great idea. (And why even is it involving Israel for gods sake?!)

If you guys wanted to be supportive to the Iranian protests, US could instead just selectively target some of the leadership and give the protests a push (and give the whole world a hint that US is supportive of them).

After 40 years of Iran constructing a thearchy government, the Iranians finally started having a huge protest on throwing up the thearchy government and possibly talking about a new west-friendly government.

And then Trump just decides to wholesale invade Iran with Israel?

That's just giving so much more reasons for the current government to be in power and the Iranians to hate the US and more generally the western world. It took 40 years for the Iranians to realize that there's enough problems in the thearchy system and want their more secularized country back; and then Trump just destroyed the whole premise!

Does the US just really think that they will be loved by everyone when they rage in and invade any random country? Do they really think like that? I'm just frustrated so much. How can the US be so egocentric?

8note13• 4 months ago

if you look at the iranian response over the past month, the theocracy really hasn't played into it.

no calls to jihad, no ayatollah dorecting anything, no nothing.

as far as i can tell, the revolution is already dead. if the US had just sat around, chances are that iran would have moved towards something more like a constitutional monarchy. still the ayatollah as a figure head and religious leader, but with the rest of the power in the democratic institutions' hands

throwawayheui573• 4 months ago

Can you point out some signs of concession from islamic regime? I think they wouldn’t concede, with or without war. That’s not in their DNA. They are religious extremists.

1234letshaveatw2• 4 months ago

Invasion lol.

yalogin2• 4 months ago

This is not over yet and it may just result in an established fee for each shipment through the strait to Iran. We won’t/havent hear from Israel which is the key player here. They just do what they want to do because they know the whole world will look the other way.

karim798• 4 months ago

This is Israel's "business as usual" stuff. Mowing the lawn, fake ceasefire, distraction, expansion and greater Israel project let's go! stuff. Stretch goal is to make Iran a failed state. Primary goal is distraction from the very real annexation of Palestinian and Lebanese territories, one war crime at a time.

ekjhgkejhgk• 4 months ago

And to anyone who doesn't buy this comment, I strongly suggest "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Mearsheimer.

helo43629• 4 months ago

What option is there for israel.

andy_ppp• 4 months ago

Fair. Clearly they need the land back GOD gave them 3000 years ago.

King-Aaron3• 4 months ago

Maybe not systematically murdering civilians and stealing their land and homes every day might be a start. Baby steps.

patates4• 4 months ago

Stop the immortality project and stop the massive suffering happening right now. People should really read "The Denial of Death".

nielsbot6• 4 months ago

Re-integration. One democratic state "from the river to the sea". And leave the neighboring states alone.

rcbdev2• 4 months ago

The only endgame I see for the region is sadly the complete and utter annihilation of all civilizations there, possibly through nuclear means.

I do not say this lightly and I say it with a deep sadness in my heart for the people of the middle east, but also with the sober realization that this is the only end of the path that is currently walked.

surgical_fire9• 4 months ago

Perhaps not be a genocidaire apartheid state?

amunozo• 4 months ago

It's so sad to see this ridiculous argument every time. Israel is the aggressor, the murder and the main threat to the region's peace, not the victim. This, of course, does not mean that Iran is not another threat, but its actions seem like nothing compared to what Israel is doing.

Rover222• 4 months ago

Ridiculous take. Israel wants a secular Iran, not a failed state. Most Iranians don’t hate Israel. They hate the Islamic regime. But westerners just looove to support all Iranian proxies these days.

GordonS9• 4 months ago

Israel does want a failed state - they want to balkanise Iran, letting their ISIS head-choppers, the Uigher terrorists etc at it. See Syria and how that's going.

andsoitis• 4 months ago

How much money did we spend on this nothingburger?

helo43629• 4 months ago

Whats the irans citizens feel about this while thing. As an outsider I see there was lot of protest against islamic regime with the killing of young girl for not covering the head or something like such.

But after trump killed the leader it seemed people rooting for islamic regime. Whats the state of people. Is there a way to know

bigyabai5• 4 months ago

Iran's citizens probably gave up hope when their civilian infrastructure was attacked by the United States. I doubt any of them actually were foolish enough to think the Kurds, Mossad or US Army would march in to help them to begin with. Both the US and Israel would much prefer the mass-punishment of Iranian citizens than a humanitarian ground operation, that was obvious even before the bombs started dropping.

If I was an Iranian citizen, I'd be seeing America as a nation of racist sociopaths. This conflict entrenches the current Iranian regime and manufactures consent for Israel and the United States to violate even more conventions of warfare to avoid a ground deployment. The intended result is obviously the balkanization of Iran.

Jean-Papoulos• 4 months ago

The terrorism recruitement numbers are gonna go through the roof in the next few years based on this alone.

o10449366• 4 months ago

Is it terrorism? radicalization seems like a pretty natural human response when your family/home/community gets indiscriminately obliterated by missiles from the sky.

Fricken• 4 months ago

I told ya the Ayatollah would end up keeping the gate. Tolling all the tankers that want to pass through the straight. The US cannot game this cockamamie new Khameini. So unless you're a tankie you won't be thanking him later.

The Hegemon can make demands but can't avoid demand destruction. Steal the oil from Iran, was that the plan? Just like a child abduction? Trump doesn't have the gumption to snatch enriched uranium nor does he have the cranium to manage prices at the pump.

Never lower, always higher. Where he sees smoke, I Cease fire. For Nukes and Nikes Nixon hollered "Abandon gold for Petrodollars!" The Ayatollah is now doling Trump a lashing for his trolling. Heed Shaheeds and bleed? No need! Say "Fuck it dude" and just go bowling.

chimpanzee22• 4 months ago

wow you're like m&m or summin

entropyneur• 4 months ago

The real winner in this war is Israel. Iran's military might is now a shadow of its former self while all the costs have been paid by someone else: American taxpayers, gas consumers around the world, Arab states. Even the political costs are on Trump.

solatic• 4 months ago

Certainly economically. NIS-USD exchange is now 3.09 and continuing to drop, reflecting optimism.

Strategically, it remains to be seen what will happen to the nuclear material in the peace talks. If Iran emerges from the war with an intact nuclear program due to a lack of American stamina to carry through and achieve its war goals, that would be an enormous strategic defeat for Israel.

iamankur• 4 months ago

Full disclosure: Iran VS USA is just an excuse to dismantle feudalism. That is the real war. The rest are just logistics exercises. If feudalism ends all wars end.

At ease everyone.

5asH12h• 4 months ago

The NYT is throwing Trump under the bus and protects Vance as the next candidate:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...

The timing is really suspicious. The fact that all this opposition in internal meetings is leaked could mean two things:

1) The establishment is genuinely upset with Trump.

2) The ceasefire is a ruse and all this purported opposition is deliberately leaked to pretend that the US now really wants peace but is actually shipping ground troops to the region (at best) or manufacturing internal consent for nuclear bunker busters (at worst).

The fact that Trump posted that he considers the maximalist Iranian 10 point plan as a basis for negotiations points to 2). He has always attacked Iran during "negotiations".

zacksiri• 4 months ago

I hope that one day humanity learns that in war there are no winners. We're all just brothers and sisters born on different corners of the planet. We share the same home.

I hope that we stop attacking one another and find peace and work together as a race to overcome our challenges.

ra7• 4 months ago

It's times like these when most people recognise that parents in all corners of the world worry about their kids just the same.

War should never break out. But it does. We had international rules to prevent war, but they're gone. We had international rules to prevent governments deliberately killing innocent people under the guise of war, but they're gone too.

It took two world wars and roughly 80 million killed to create those rules.

You could argue about when they got destroyed. In Ukraine, in Gaza, Iran - but it's clear now that they don't exist any more.

squishington• 4 months ago

This is a lovely notion that most well adjusted people can get behind, but if you've ever had a person with narcissistic personality disorder in your life, you'll understand that they need to create conflict to emotionally regulate themselves. Unfortunately these people tend to acquire wealth and power, and are never satisfied. Then the rest of us have to deal with it.

krembo3• 4 months ago

rainbows and unicorns are cool while you're under 9

contingencies• 4 months ago

Amen. Also, nature is awesome and we live in a period of technological plenty and instant global communication with arbitrary knowledge and decent translation available in seconds, so why are we still acting like lunatics and hating on groups?

Parents: stop teaching your children to identify with irrelevant concepts of ethno-nationalism, and instead teach them to be globalist scientists with empathy.

Nationalismus ist eine Kinderkrankheit. Die Masern der Menschheit. ("Nationalism is an infantile disease: the measles of mankind") - Albert Einstein, 1929. Who, incidentally, turned down the presidency of Israel.

"Should we be unable to find a way to honest cooperation and honest pacts with the Arabs, then we have learned absolutely nothing during our two thousand years of suffering and deserve all that will come to us." - Einstein on Israel, late 1920s.

PLUR

mdni007• 4 months ago

The most powerful country in the world is run by an elite class of genocidal pedophiles who also (allegedly) eat people. People in the west are fed lies through the media that those same people have full control over. We are given a false sense of freedom. Freedom of speech only protects you from those who have significantly less power than those you actually need protection from. If those people want you gone you'll disappear without trace.

briansm• 4 months ago

That will happen on the day there is enough to go around.

Unfortunately I fear that time has long gone.

As long as the population is growing and/or the (fossil) energy is falling there will never be enough to go around.

walterlw• 4 months ago

I doubt it very much that either Russian war on Ukraine or the US attacking Iran happened due do scarcity of resources. Old folks in power want their page in history books.

davyAdewoyin• 4 months ago

I doubt scarcity has had anything to do with wars for the last 100 years, maybe even longer. It has always been about ideologies, fanaticism, and lording it over one another. Even when men lived in smaller tribes during periods of abundance, they still went around killing each other for false glory, ideology, and expansion. No economic solution can solve the problem of war and human nature.

Even if men ever colonize Mars and the wider galaxy, and resources were abundant, I doubt it would take long for wars to break out there, whether for a specific reason or none at all.

markus_zhang2• 4 months ago

Human nature is more about attacking left and right and grab other people’s stuffs. At least some humans. Part of the human gene is like that. Aggressive, invasive, relentless.

p0w3n3d• 4 months ago

I used to think this way, however lately I understood that all wars, I mean all of them (even those religious ones) are motivated by resources. Those resources are money, power, control. People deciding on war to begin are those who benefit from it (usually, unless they've been manipulated).

And sometimes there is crazy. But crazy I can't explain, sorry.

Yet, we all mostly understand we are people and we love each other. But then the big guys come and lead us to war. To get more gas, to get more power, to get influence. Ukraine? They threatened to become independent from Russia (influence). Afghanistan? They threatened to use gold as price factor (influence). Iran? here it might be the third factor I won't explain, but also motivation by money I guess...

krembo3• 4 months ago

It's interesting how the hackernews-biased views of the war outcomes don't align with how Iranians themselves see that. For instance you can translate from persian the following geopolitical view which will shed a totally different light on the situation to whoever depends solely on hn comments https://x.com/i/status/2041693098833518976

Den_VR• 4 months ago

Posted from Maryland?

krembo3• 4 months ago

Too bad the internet inside Iran was shut down by the IRGC terrorists regime

RiverStone32• 4 months ago

Thanks for sharing perspectives from actual Iranians.

nxor0• 4 months ago

Hey there, semi related to your comment above, I read your point that "Sad that my comment got flagged, this is a major problem with hacker news - censorship of comments that prevent people from hearing all perspectives" and agree completely. I've been flagged and shadowbanned for mentioning Iryna Zarutska and in general, anything that people would rather silence than address with words and reason. I'd love to talk more about this. It's sad because most of the people here regard themselves highly but this doesn't match the experience of "this opinion is counter mine therefore it must vanish and I can go on believing no one disagrees with me"

noah_buddy• 4 months ago

Up until a couple months ago, none of these people would even describe themselves as “Iranian.”

They would all use another term to distinguish between themselves and those living in Iran.

warmonger• 4 months ago

Yes, just a regular Iranian. Hahaha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International

You can read who funds this channel.

aucisson_masque2• 4 months ago

I can't figure out what was even USA goal in this war ? they have said everything and it's contrary, so there is no way to know if they won or if they lost. I guess it's a smart move.

But on the other hand,

Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.

Iran missiles.. they still shoot them and there is nothing to prevent them to build more. They are going to get a big cash-flow with that control of the Detroit, recognized in the 10 point agreement.

Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.

What other usa war goal were proclaimed ?

I vaguely remember a national security thing where Iran was going to bomb America. I guess the war didn't prevent that because Iran did kill American soldiers and caused billions of $ in loss.

Iran goal on the other hand ?

Destroy the evil American ? They weren't going to anyway.

Survive ? I guess they did.

And now the population that was supporting their government is even more radicalized.

surgical_fire9• 4 months ago

Iran government has not been replaced. I'd say it's even stronger now that it 'won' the war (that's the way they're going to show it on national television) and they even asked to get UN sanctions lifted. That will bring them some legitimacy back.

That's the thing, winning depends on your goals.

Iran's goal was to survive as a country, and the autocratic theocracy that rules it to stay in charge. Not only it managed that so far, but it now effectively controls the flow of all exports going through the gulf. It is an actual victory.

US' goals were unclear. A lot was said. Regime change? Stop Iran's nuclear program? Stop its support to proxies in the region? Take Kharg Island? None of that was done. It was a deafeat.

Israel's goal is murder. It murdered a lot of people during this war. Double points for murdering children. I think Israel can also claim victory here.

aucisson_masque2• 3 months ago

Yeah, on second thought I think that the real winner is Israel.

After all, it's their war. American shouldn't even care and yet they got convinced to spend billions and billions on this war that will benefit mostly Israel.

And the greatest achievement ? Before you mention it in the comment, I even had forgotten that Israel was cobeligirent in that war. They go under the radar when they are those who actually reached their goal: kill, murder Iran official, destroy their infrastructures, 'lay down the grass' as they say.

And now they even invaded Lebanon while the world is happy because the Detroit is open again.

Truly a masterclass.

bcjdjsndon• 4 months ago

Unsurprising as America is currently run by a bunch of second rate TV presenters

andrewflnr2• 4 months ago

But on the other hand,
Iran still has enriched uranium, nuclear facilities and now they even have put in the agreement a recognition of Iran's right to seek nuclear technology.

You can figure out the goal. What you can't figure out is a goal that actually had a snowball's chance in an oil fire of being achieved.

afpx5• 4 months ago

I thought it was to create "Greater Israel"

a_cardboard_box• 4 months ago

Insider trading. People surrounding Trump like when he does crazy stuff that shifts markets, so they influence him to do so. And Trump is really easy to influence.

XorNot2• 4 months ago

Looks like I'm buying the oil futures dip this week!

moezd• 4 months ago

Trump wanted tariffs on everyone to increase everyone's operations expenses so that he can somehow enact a protectionist policy. It was repeatedly shut down by the Supreme Court. Now, even with this ceasefire you will have the new Hurmuz tax long after the insurance premiums wind down, and everyone who's heavily dependent on ME oil have increased expenses. Mission accomplished, I guess? At what cost, though.

yalogin2• 4 months ago

So with all the bluster we are able to roll the clock back successfully to pre Obama stage of negotiations? Essentially starting from discussing if Iran should have nuclear capability or not and then adding new stuff like Iran controlling the strait and collecting toll on it. Awesome, so much winning!

Havoc• 4 months ago

Wild that the US accepted Iran's maximalist demands as starting point for negotiations. There seem to be some uncertainty around what those 10 points are - multiple versions floating around, but they all read very much like a US strategic defeat. Full retreat from region, reparations to be paid etc.

yodsanklai2• 4 months ago

TACO fortunately. Let's hope this is resolved. Question: what are Trump next plans, who is he going to harass now? he seems to go crescendo in the craziness. Maybe he'll calm down a bit before the mid-terms though.

ablation• 4 months ago

It would seem all arrows are pointing at Cuba, which I'm sure won't put up quite as much of a fight.

exabrial• 4 months ago

I pray for peace in the world. While the past has shown these things to be complicated and sometimes temporary, I accept progress over perfection.

ZeroGravitas• 4 months ago

Trump is now threatening CNN with legal repercussions for publishing the Iraninian government's take on this, so I think it safe to say we all lost this war.

scorpionfeet• 4 months ago

So: worse than the Obama treaty. Got it.

karim798• 4 months ago

Pinning this right here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack

erfgh2• 4 months ago

I hate bombing as much as the next guy but areas close to military structures, especially to ones that have already been bombed during the last 24 hours, should have been evacuated.

culi• 4 months ago

On 28 February 2026, between 10:23 and 10:45 a.m

That's the exact same time the other buildings were hit. It was all part of the same strike package. The school was hit directly, not accidentally, and The Guardian has previously reported on evidence that these targets were selected with AI assistance

RiverStone32• 4 months ago

Responding with this: https://youtu.be/8_AiSeYsDeA?si=xsZTGWxcVaVRbXCi

Iranians responding with excitement and hope as we bomb the regime.

KellyCriterion• 4 months ago

So, to summarize:

- Trump spent a lot of money

- a lot of people were killed

- basicly, he gained nothing?

- in the future, street of hormuz will be an ongoing conflict

thats the result?

karim798• 4 months ago

Israel's agreement with the GCC countries:

1. Guarantee that Israel won't attack a neighbouring state again.

2. Respect borders and refrain from engaging in expansionist activities.

3. Declare their nuclear weapons and respect the rights of neighbours to possess such weapons.

4. Desist in all genocidal activities for a period of forever.

5. Submit any and all Israeli leaders for whom international arrest warrants have been issued to the appropriate authorities.

6. Be responsible for those occupied by the state of Israel, in accordance with international law.

7. All second hand furniture should be registered with Bibi Netanyahu's office for evaluation.

8. Bibi Netanyahu should not use his thumb on the map in his office while describing the Greater Israel Vision because it's annoying and illegal.

9. Bibi Netanyahu must declare all gifts of second-hand furniture to the state of Israel to avoid further corruption charges.

10. Bibi Netanyahu must submit himself to a psychiatrist with utmost immediacy.

whatever1• 4 months ago

People died for this shit.

And congress did nothing to stop this insanity.

Don’t blame Trump. Blame the elected officials.

erfgh2• 4 months ago

Countries that send their oil through the strait of Hormuz will build alternative routes. But for such routes to be ready a few years will be needed. Once alternative routes are in place, and since Iran will likely not have a nuclear weapon by then, full obliteration of Iran will ensue.

phtrivier• 4 months ago

Will people buy more American / Venezuelian / Russian oil now that the ME is going to be perpetually under the threat of another Iranian squeeze ?

Will pipelines with creative routing make a comeback ?

Or will people, you know, try to reduce their dependency on oil and gas by using less prehistoric technology ? Naaaah that would require R&D. Leave that to the Chinese. We have pensioners to support.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

The ceasefire is over.

Iran launched three waves of ballistic missiles at Israel after the ceasefire was announced; the first wave happened about an hour after the ceasefire announcement, then another 5 hours after, then another 8 hours after.

Iran also launched waves of drones at UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia within the first few hours of the ceasefire, and they've continued more over the next 12 hours. Multiple major energy facilities were struck, including desalination plants and oil facilities. Saudi Arabia’s East-West oil pipeline was hit. In Kuwait, three power stations a water desalination plants were severely damaged following drone attacks.

Israel announced the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon, and launched a massive wave of airstrikes on Lebanon about an hour ago. Iran said this is a ceasefire violation, and resumed launching drones and missiles.

This ceasefire is done, nobody wants to stop fighting, the war will be back to usual in the next few days.

watwut5• 4 months ago

The ceasefire was never between Israel and Iran, Israel did not stopped bombing even after first announcement.

tristanj29• 4 months ago

Nope, Israel did stop its strikes on Iran. However, they did not stop bombing Lebanon.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-backs-iran-truce-opp...

phendrenad22• 4 months ago

Maybe. I'll wait for confirmation from sources outside of the usual "fast news" channels like X, which are full of disinformation.

abustamam8• 4 months ago

Part of this "fast news" channel also includes POTUS's incessant "Truths" which are also full of disinformation even about his own administration.

Really hard to find facts these days!

bayindirh• 4 months ago

LiveUAMap shows no such activity currently. Normally it provides information pretty quickly if something like that has happened.

d3rockk• 4 months ago

Yes it does. https://iran.liveuamap.com/

drewbeck2• 4 months ago

Gonna need at least a single link to a source before I believe this. Googling provides Facebook links and YouTube videos from Fox News and AI generated “news” sites.

derwiki• 4 months ago

I hate that my first thought is: but then why is the DOW still up 2.5%?

danans4• 4 months ago

Stock markets move with storytelling, not facts.

NickC257• 4 months ago

A good analogy to this situation is the analogy of playing chess with a pigeon, who knocks over the pieces, takes a shit on the board, struts around for a moment, and flies away.

Except in this case, the pigeon has a ton of yes-men worshiping it, and praises each of its moves as genius. Except it hasn't made any chess moves, it's literally knocked over pieces and shit on the board, leaving the board and pieces in worse shape. Worse yet - there's a narrative being built by the pigeon's yes-men that the actions by the pigeon were indeed genius, and the situation is better....and people believe the yes-men.

andyjohnson0• 4 months ago

Report Card:

USA, #1 world power, nukes etc, failed to win. Iranian regime wasn't destroyed, and the HE uranium is still there. Two carrier battle groups weren't enough to re-open the straits. Burned $45bn and achieved nothing much.

Iran, fourth-rate regional power, failed to lose. Regime still in power, and still has its HE uranium. Oil infrastructure intact. Military knocked-about a bit, but still capable of controlling the straits and bringing in the $$$. They get to keep brutalising their frightened population.

Israel, premium regional power, suddenly all on its own running a hot, two-front war with no easy exit, because Trump cut and ran. Netanyahu is probably toast in the upcoming elections, which means hes going to jail for all the corruption stuff.

China, mega military power, picked the right side and comes out of it clean. Looks like a model, dependable global citizen. Access to the oil without paying the $2m/boat straits fee. Didn't blow $45bn on nothing.

Russia, third-rate power on the way down, made some roubles on the oil price thing, but still has all the same problems as before. Meatgrinder war. Economic and demographic collapse still imminent. Global pariah, except for Orban and Erdoğan and the Belarus guy. Putin's getting pretty old.

EU+UK basically sat it out. Sensible. Much economic damage though.

Thousands of dead/wounded/traumatised adults and children -- a running sore that shames us all. Plus all the victims of the Gaza and Lebanon wars. Deep, deep anger for multiple generations. Revenge, etc.

----

Officially its a ceasefire, but everyone knows the US won't restart after this. Its six months to the mid-terms, and the genius orange guy in Washington has other things on his mind. And Epstein is still hanging around like a bad smell. What to try next?

oyebenny• 3 months ago

Interesting, if the Mossad appears to be in the comments.

silexia• 3 months ago

The US should seize total control of the Strait of Hormuz, including all land necessary to ensure safe passage of ships. The population should be evicted. The US should collect high fees for safe ship passage to pay for everything.

US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

Related Stories