ListNook

HelloDoctorImDying 21 hr ago +131

So, just the two main things then.

131

quarter_belt 21 hr ago +10

I think they are also stalemated on few billion of Iran's frozen assets

10

StrebLab 18 hr ago +4

They were so close!

4

poopey_doopey_Sr 21 hr ago +6

The two *only* things!

6

vu2tve 20 hr ago +11

also the tiny matter of israel not ending its wars.

11

Funny_Obligation2412 20 hr ago +10

The 3 only things

10

Really_McNamington 20 hr ago +56

It took 30 months of expert negotiation to get the agreement Trump ripped up last time. Why would Vance believe he could do anything in 21 hours?

56

synapse187 19 hr ago +33

Stupid people do not know they are stupid. Now we have a government full of them.

33

DreSledge 19 hr ago +4

He fucked a couch for 21 seconds, why not this?

4

HashtagDadWatts 20 hr ago +48

Remember when Obama got a nuclear deal without blockading a critical waterway or starting a war?

48

probablypoo 20 hr ago +25

Remember when Trump tore up that deal with no benefit what so ever to anyone and which eventually lead to this war?

25

fubes2000 16 hr ago +5

The act of which essentially demonstrating that America's promises are not worth the paper they're printed on, and affirming that the only way to ensure their own interests is to engage on equal, nuclear footing.

5

RuthlessIndecision 6 hr ago

The North Korea Gambit

0

fubes2000 4 hr ago +1

How many bombs have been dropped on NK recently?

1

HormuzVengeance 20 hr ago -36

Remember when islamic republic continued to chant death to America every day despite getting sent all that money that didn’t belong to them in the first place but rather the people of Iran; continued to enrich uranium past the agreement in secret; invested that money into terror cells globally; and further brutalised the Iranians?

-36

animatedpileofmeat 19 hr ago +16

The Red States call for my death every day and I don’t give a hoot. I’m not a thin-skinned MAGA piece of shit though, so I can see how they might react differently.

16

Smart_Ass_Dave 20 hr ago +17

The secretary of defense declared no quarter after we bombed a school. Our moral high ground is plummeting as quickly as oil prices are skyrocketing.

17

HormuzVengeance 19 hr ago -29

Whilst the loss of any Iranian life is tragic, the real question is why the IRGC puts military assets within, under, and directly adjacent to civil infrastructure like schools and hospitals in order to legitimise them as military targets. It’s because the IRGC wants Iranian deaths in order to spin the media narrative and victimise themselves. For every young girl who died in the school, there are hundreds of young girls that the IRGC themselves have killed, raped, and prostituted off to militias. The IRGC themselves gassed a girls school only a few years ago in order to suppress a feminist uprising. Every single Iranian death ultimately is at the fault of the occupying junta that is the islamic republic.

-29

Smart_Ass_Dave 18 hr ago +6

There are literally triple digit numbers of schools on US bases. None of the crimes of the IRGC have been addressed by bombing them.

6

Initial-Return8802 19 hr ago +3

So... never downsize a base and put civilian buildings there in case the USA doesn't read a damn updated map?

3

HormuzVengeance 19 hr ago -14

No this isn’t what I said. What I said is that the IRGC purposefully utilise public spaces as legitimate military zones with assets in order to legitimise them for maximum collateral damage.

-14

Initial-Return8802 19 hr ago +1

It was walled off from the base in 2016, that's *10 years* that it's been a civilian building and if anyone had actually bothered to read a map of Iran they would have seen it. You think no other countries have civilian buildings near military bases?

1

HormuzVengeance 18 hr ago -1

We can mourn the victims of Minab while acknowledging that the primary threat to Iranian lives remains the junta (IR) that has turned the entire country into a battlefield. If we let this tragedy justify the survival of a regime that killed ten times that many children in cold blood just weeks earlier, we are effectively saying that the IRGC's right to occupy and slaughter Iranians is more important than the accidental errors of an intervention.

-1

Initial-Return8802 18 hr ago +1

Yes of course, but this war isn't about regime change. You don't get regime change without occupation, and Trump isn't willing to go all in on Iran - instead making threats at their power and infrastructure. Whatever way this war ends, the IRGC will still be there unless Trump takes the plunge and pushes for full surrender and occupation which he will *not* survive politically

1

HormuzVengeance 18 hr ago +2

We understand that regime change isn’t the end goal of the US’ attacks, but the attacks have weakened the IR. They’ve eradicated a lot of the leadership and decimated a lot of their tools of oppression in the form of their military assets. This puts them in a much weaker position to indiscriminately massacre the population like they did in January, and it makes the chances of a successful uprising more significant. The final push was always going to be Iranian civilians taking to the street again - hopefully armed and with a weaker and more uncoordinated IRGC.

2

HashtagDadWatts 19 hr ago +11

Imaging being so sensitive to chanting that you waste billions of dollars and countless lives while imperiling the world economy with a pointless war. How impotent.

11

HormuzVengeance 19 hr ago -8

When a terrorist organisation is allowed to control a country and its assets, economic ransom is inevitable. If it wasn’t today, it would’ve been tomorrow with the IR. If it wasn’t for this reason, they would’ve picked another reason arbitrarily.

-8

HashtagDadWatts 18 hr ago +1

Weird that it didn’t happen when we had a negotiated weapons agreement with them and just so happened to coincide with us instigating a war.

1

abenevolentmouse 19 hr ago +1

Remember when vatanparasti meant not calling for your fellow Iranians to be nuked by genocidal maniacs?

1

HormuzVengeance 19 hr ago -3

Remember when vatanparasti wasn’t supporting the islamic regime that slaughtered 30,000 of your ham mihan on the streets for wanting a better life? Where’s the nuke? Who launched a nuke? No one. Who slaughtered 30,000 Iranians. The IR. Who gang rapes Iranian women? The IR. Who legalised child marriage and rapes children? The IR. Who executes Iranians for ‘apostasy’? The IR. Who has stolen everything from the country whilst people go hungry, then kills them for protesting? The IR. The only people who don’t support the eradication of IR are the khaenin who support it.

-3

ReallyGottaTakeAPiss 20 hr ago +13

You know it’s nice to see the US and Iran working together to close the Straight of Hormuz

13

supercali45 20 hr ago +14

The level of incompetence… sending f****** Jared??

14

llixaa 19 hr ago +3

Wait till you hear that [Netanyahu slept in Kushner's family home](https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/when-netanyahu-slept-at-the-kushners-and-other-media-tales-of-trumps-jewish-confidantes-481486) and even in Jared Kushner's own BED. Yet people are surprised that Trump administration is putting Israel first.

3

KeepCalmCarryOnKY 18 hr ago +3

Reminds of the ignorant Ukraine discussions that always led back to Russia demanding all of Donbas.

3

StrangeMan18 20 hr ago +14

The fact that this whole conversation used to be about Iran’s nuclear enrichment and now they’ve added the Hormuz too which Iran wasn’t even sure it could shut down amounts to the biggest US defeat in 40 years

14

BountyMakesMeCough 20 hr ago +24

Bigger than the kremlin taking the white house?

24

Lazy-Gene-7284 19 hr ago +2

Bingo

2

mf-TOM-HANK 19 hr ago +6

Simply put, there is no scenario where the present Iranian regime persists and they do not ultimately acquire nuclear weapons. There is no deal to be made, it's one or the other. It's either regime change or widespread nuclear proliferation. I bet Lebanon wishes they had a nuclear arms program right about now. Same for Maduro. Same for the Cuban regime. Trump's lasting legacy will be nuclear proliferation (although de-dollarization is coming up the rear and would be an economic nuclear winter)

6

Gadshill 21 hr ago +3

It used to just be about the nuclear stockpile so it is clear the two sides are making progress.

3

ruskyandrei 21 hr ago +4

Nobody could've foreseen this.

4

Both-Store949 20 hr ago +2

Trump did(n’t)

2

bickering_fool 20 hr ago +1

I thought the 'stockpile' had been destroyed?

1

old_righty 20 hr ago +6

Completely and utterly destroyed, perhaps the most destroyed in history!!!

6

MikeSteamer 21 hr ago +1

Such useless headlines: Iran’s nuclear stockpile - for MAGA consumption. Stockpiles infer nuclear weapons when in reality it is an amount of enriched nuclear material that is not integrated in any kind of weapon to our knowledge.

1

Taxing 20 hr ago +9

And yet enriched far past what is needed for domestic purposes and en route to the enrichment necessary for weaponization, so there is that.

9

Astralsketch 18 hr ago +3

developing a weapon system for delivering the payload, triggering the payload, etc is a HUGE part of "having nukes".

3

Taxing 18 hr ago +1

Again, no reason to enrich to 60% unless for weaponization, so the argument isn’t that they weren’t, just how long it would take them.

1

[deleted] 21 hr ago +1

[deleted]

1

Oghier 20 hr ago +10

> I'm guessing Iran will cave in Perhaps, but I think probably not. Why would they? If this conflict goes on, their people will suffer, but we've already seen they don't care about that. As long as the IRGC is in control, serious unrest seems unlikely. They'll just kill the protestors. Again. Also, they know Trump wants out of this. His polls have cratered and the stock market hates the war. As those are two things he *does* care about, I'd be shocked if he were willing to escalate this. I think Iran has some bargaining power here.

10

Green_Dream20 20 hr ago +2

Polls are useless with Trump, they always say he was going to lose and then he wins or it's a tight race and he wins the house,senate and popular vote. Most of his supports don't even watch the news, they just watch cat and dog videos then turn out and vote for him. Trump definitely wants out of this tho, 100%. No way is he putting boots on the ground.

2

[deleted] 20 hr ago +1

[deleted]

1

Additional-Can9184 20 hr ago -1

Same can be said about the US. Either they cave or they face the entire world and their own country.

-1

[deleted] 20 hr ago +1

[deleted]

1

MetalBawx 20 hr ago +2

The US started this conflict causing the strait to be closed. Incidentally Iran has repeatedly threatened that if invaded they'd block that sealane.

2

Additional-Can9184 20 hr ago -2

I mean not directly, but i fail to see how that is relevant.

-2

[deleted] 20 hr ago +1

[deleted]

1

Additional-Can9184 20 hr ago +2

Yeah nah mate. The straight was not even under discussion before the US attacked them. I think we all know who the world blames for Iran s actions.

2

[deleted] 20 hr ago +2

[deleted]

2

MetalBawx 20 hr ago +2

Except it isn't blaming them, they are blaming Trump and Nehanyahu for starting an unprovoked war. Noone in Europe is going to dig the US out of this mountain of shit they've brought upon themselves for doing Bibi's dirty work.

2

yaba3800 20 hr ago +3

I don't think you can expect logical actions by a theocratic hardline regime, China can pressure them, but not control them

3

Dry_Werewolf_1597 20 hr ago +1

Your two points kind of contradict each other though. If Iran is just irrational hardliners, then yeah of course China can’t control them, you can’t logic someone out of irrationality. But if you think China’s pressure should be moving them and it isn’t, that means Iran is actually calculating its own interests. That’s literally what rational behavior looks like. What’s the rational case for caving here? Through Oman, they signaled they’d give up enriched uranium, and got bombed anyway while talks were still happening. Every time they’ve shown flexibility, JCPOA, back channels, the other side either walked away or attacked. Look at Libya, gave up everything, Gaddafi was gone within a few years with Western planes overhead. Look what happened to Ukraine, they gave up nuclear weapons and was invaded. Not caving isn’t hardline irrationality, it’s just basic pattern recognition at this point.

1

yaba3800 19 hr ago

You're not wrong, what I should have/meant to say is that their actions don't follow our logic who are on the outside looking in. They're main goal, like all dictatorships, is to stay in power at all costs. They will react via Hormuz with that goal in mind.

0

animatedpileofmeat 20 hr ago +8

>I’m guessing Iran will cave. Your entire history is you saying this over and over for the last six weeks as shit gets **continuously worse**.

8

TSL4me 20 hr ago

Dude they already bomber their neighbors desalination plants and power grid. They dont give a f*** what anybody thinks and china/russia will gladly still sell them weapons.

0

YouCantSeeMe555 19 hr ago

Saw a great video about how that pilot rescue was actually the US attacking Isfahan to try and destroy their nuclear stockpile but it failed. Results unknown other than the burnt out C-130s and little birds. We'll never know though.

0

[deleted] 21 hr ago -11

[deleted]

-11

frenin 20 hr ago +9

Why would the UN get involved?

9

Oghier 20 hr ago +6

Don't think of the UN as an international government. It's not, as it can't enforce anything. Think of it as a forum for debate and diplomacy. It is that, and it functions reasonably well for that purpose. It's all talk, no action. The talking bit is useful. It's not a solution to anything, but it can help form a consensus and path toward one.

6

sidonay 20 hr ago +1

Yeah the UN should negotiate a stop to their war against Iran... /s

1

Deadlock on Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear stockpile led to impasse, officials say

💬 Send a Message

69 Comments