· 199 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 27, 2026 at 11:06 AM

Iran offers to reopen Strait of Hormuz if US lifts its blockade and the war ends, officials say

Posted by AndroidOne1


Iran offers to reopen Strait of Hormuz if US lifts its blockade and the war ends, officials say
AP News
Iran offers to reopen Strait of Hormuz if US lifts its blockade and the war ends, officials say
Iran has offered to end its control over the Strait of Hormuz if the U.S. lifts its blockade and ends the war. That's according to regional officials.

🚩 Report this post

199 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
Fritzo2162 1 day ago +2837
"We can return to the situation before the war if you agree to end the war."
2837
ohiotechie 1 day ago +1566
Honestly that’s about as good as an ending as we’re likely to get.
1566
koshgeo 18 hr ago +21
"At the cost of many billions of dollars, hundreds of lives, and disruptions to the global economy that will persist for at least months to a year, I have negotiated a fantastic deal the likes of which the world has never seen before that roughly corresponds to the situation before the war."
21
twitterfluechtling 13 hr ago +7
Well, he did. That level of market manipulation and grifting by him and his cronies is definitely an unprecedented deal...
7
UnlikelyKaiju 22 hr ago +647
It's certainly a better offer than Trump deserves for *starting* the damn war in the first place.
647
R_W0bz 20 hr ago +154
Except now everyone knows how to f*** with the world economy.
154
10YearsANoob 19 hr ago +198
Everyone knew this even 50 years ago it's just nobody thought someone was stupid enough to actually do it
198
Spazicon 18 hr ago +87
Ah, but Donald was!
87
j33205 18 hr ago +47
Art of the deal!
47
MonkeyParadiso 14 hr ago +20
'You got grabbed by the p****!'
20
VCTRYDTX 13 hr ago +4
*Hormuzzy*
4
Niblolkik 15 hr ago +7
Art of the feel..
7
Tickomatick 14 hr ago +2
Shart of the Deal
2
timurt421 16 hr ago +26
I don’t like that people still think he started this war because he’s stupid. He did it to distract everyone from the fact that he’s implicated in the Epstein files and it’s working.
26
chamrockblarneystone 15 hr ago +16
You have to imagine, in his mind, that the distraction would be he looks like a hero for defeating Iraq quickly and easily. Whats happening now makes him look weak and confused, and the Epstein scandal a lot more likely. He clearly did not foresee this outcome.
16
Ok_Crazy_6000 13 hr ago +5
Because he is stupid to think that will save him and for causing the death of his citizens and extreme finacial loss to his own country and the rest of the world for 0 gain. It's not working at all, it's just war takes a higher priority for now because people are dying. As soon as it ends or it goes long enough that the world can just get on with its business it's back into Epstein.
5
Number127 13 hr ago +3
That's why he did it, but it's not why he did it so badly.
3
Admirable_Self7201 11 hr ago +2
But…. *Terrorisms!*
2
DefiantRedditor_ 19 hr ago +63
They already knew. It’s whether or not they had cause to do it. If they didn’t and closed it, the whole world would come down on them.
63
SailorET 17 hr ago +4
But now they've shown both the capacity and the willingness to actually do it. You may theoretically be able to destroy your neighbor's garden if they pissed you off, but it's another thing entirely to start torching their gardenias.
4
Shirolicious 19 hr ago +25
And we can be damn sure they will build nukes this time around
25
FromTralfamadore 22 hr ago +82
Except now we don’t have a way to monitor their nuclear program.
82
Troyabedinthemornin 21 hr ago +75
Then we really shouldn’t have killed the guy who didn’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons
75
SubstantialHeat3655 19 hr ago +40
> Then we really shouldn’t have killed the guy who didn’t want Iran to develop nuclear weapons Thank you for mentioning this. It isn't mentioned enough. I only found out *after* the USA killed him, that Khamenei had **outlawed** the development of nuclear weapons, declaring them "un-Islamic." Doesn't it seem like there should be wider awareness of that fact? Sort of ruins the whole pretext for the war.
40
Streiger108 18 hr ago +23
Pay attention to what they do, not what they say. Words are wind.
23
Troyabedinthemornin 18 hr ago +19
What did he do? Fail to develop a nuclear weapon for decades, despite the insistence from Israel that Iran has been days away from a nuke since the 80’s? Barely have the infrastructure for even just nuclear power? Purchase the kind of enriched uranium that is not suitable for nuclear arms?
19
homiej420 22 hr ago +49
Which was exactly the point russia/china wanted
49
Nihilist-Saint 21 hr ago +77
Which we lost when Trump ended it in his first term anyways.
77
DookieShoez 21 hr ago +46
God he is such a stupid stubborn fuckup 🙄
46
Kahzgul 20 hr ago +7
And also sanctions on Russian oil have been lifted
7
TheRealSciFiMadman 21 hr ago +41
This war was never about monitoring their nuclear program. The JCPOA agreed under President Obama pretty much guaranteed that Iran wouldn't be able to produce weapons-grade fissionable material. This was purely to distract attention away from the Epstein Coalition. With the war hopefully coming to a close, can we talk about the files again? Thanks u/Koshgeo for the correction.
41
koshgeo 18 hr ago +6
> produce fissionable material You mean weapons-grade fissionable material. It did allow enrichment to mild levels for power generation (a few percent), which is why Iran was allowed to have centrifuges for isotopic separation at all.
6
hoowins 19 hr ago +6
Only wasted $100 billion.
6
alltheblarmyfiddlest 20 hr ago +12
Thinking of the Iranian people, this is so devastating for them. The regime still has been executing people for the crimes of protesting, of giving medical aid to those who protested...it's just horrific. So disappointing...the lack of a clear cut plan, the lack of basic goals. The lack of decency and competency in those who were making decisions...ugh. Maybe Pahlavi will have a chance somehow for that transitional government.
12
rje946 19 hr ago +3
So you know he won't take it
3
theOGHyburn 21 hr ago +11
Trump did a great job stirring the pot and finally getting a great deal like it didn’t start in the first place. America, Are you guys okay? The rest of the world is curious why you haven’t acted to end this lunacy sooner
11
chamrockblarneystone 15 hr ago +4
Some guy tried just the other night.
4
CumGuzlinGutterSluts 18 hr ago +4
Aside from litterally swarming the Whitehouse and removing him physically at the cost of who knows how many lives theres not really any other way
4
Niblolkik 15 hr ago +2
Make a deal to justify war crimes
2
Is_it_really_though 22 hr ago +132
"And now I've ended 9 wars. They said it couldnt be done. Never. They said. They said never. But I did it."
132
Kattimatti666 20 hr ago +41
"I had to go there because they closed the strait. They said nuh uh, nobody can pass. No more ships. France tried to get it open, they couldn't, nobody could do it. So I went there with the best weapons, American weapons, and we blew them the hell up and opened the strait. World leaders have been calling me saying Thank you, you saved our country. They have all been calling"
41
digidado 20 hr ago +18
Literally what hes gonna say, scarily accurate.
18
Kattimatti666 18 hr ago +13
The sad part is that I'm from Finland, and I don't even follow Trump stuff. He has slithered his way everywhere, even a non native English speaker like me has his stupid f****** voice in my head enough to do a written impression. Sad.
13
digidado 14 hr ago +5
"Sad!" And the worst part is all the world leaders who don't want to see all the supply lines fucked have to play along with his insanity as best they can.
5
Kermit_the_hog 18 hr ago +9
> World leaders have been calling me saying Thank you The big ones, with tears in their eyes?
9
TheSchlaf 16 hr ago +3
Yep, all wearing suits.
3
TristanIsAwesome 16 hr ago +5
Big men, strong men called me, with tears in their eyes, tears!, saying "sir, thank you so much for saving the strait of horman! No one could do it but you. Many people are saying you're the best president ever, not Lincoln or Washington or Kennedy, but you sir." Edit: actually that's probably too coherent, more in keeping with a 2015 Trump
5
c_macattack 20 hr ago +2
“Grown men…with tears in their eyes…sir…”
2
GlorytoGlorzo 15 hr ago +2
He just might get a Fisher-Price Peace Prize!!
2
Excellent-Ask-4247 20 hr ago +6
Under new management, but worse management than before, mission fail!
6
2hands_bowler 20 hr ago +16
Doooooon't forget Lebanon. Lebanon gets ***screwed***.
16
Greybeard-MD 13 hr ago +4
Lebanon wants nothing to do with either of these idiodic regimes. They are perfectly capable of negotiation for themselves. Looks like they might finally kick Hezbollah to the curb. 
4
VanceKelley 20 hr ago +19
There are a lot of people who are now dead. They and their families are never going to get back to the situation they had before the war.
19
Koala_eiO 22 hr ago +22
Which is a great way to call out 79 years old Trump's bluff and show the world that he has no intention of returning to the previous situation.
22
AmamiHarukIsMaiWaifu 21 hr ago +8
So we can start building nuclear bomb* No way the US and Israel agree to this.
8
ITI110878 21 hr ago +8
They will. There is no other option, unless they want to put boots on the ground.
8
OkPrinciple37 16 hr ago +2
Israel does not care. It’s not their boots. I would not be surprised if Trump declares victory, the war is over, Iran folded etc etc, and then fires off tweets rambling on demanding a Nobel Peace prize that he “doesn’t care about” while Israel simultaneously fires missiles. 
2
Ok-Selection4206 19 hr ago +3
Minus weapon grade plutonium. Big difference.
3
thesexychicken 13 hr ago +3
Except a generation or two of hardline leadership are gone now….
3
Acoconutting 19 hr ago +2
Speed running the Middle East wars of the past 50 years sounds better than dragging it out for 10 years
2
snakeeaterrrrrrr 1 day ago +2644
It seems like everyone is referencing the same Axios report with no independent confirmation? Is that right?
2644
sarges_12gauge 1 day ago +415
Like half of the headlines on this site recently are straight up fraudulent. If you read the articles even quotes are used for phrases that are not actually said. With that said, every article about “Iran says X” suffers the same problem that there is nobody who can speak on behalf of Iran (all its constituent groups) at the moment on that level even if somebody in the Iranian government actually says X
415
ZAlternates 1 day ago +64
Given anyone can tweet or say anything at any time, and we can’t even verify if what is said, even by the actual president, is true, it’s a case of schrodinger’s straight.
64
oroborus68 1 day ago +23
Well,we know if the us president said it, it's a lie.
23
orincoro 1 day ago +7
Which is kinda the point really. The U.S. keeps destabilizing until they basically get to pick who they want to negotiate with.
7
[deleted] 1 day ago +799
[removed]
799
RS308 1 day ago +628
People on Listnook nitpicking Axios when they treat screenshots from random Twitter accounts like it’s gospel is pretty funny ngl.
628
Kraien 1 day ago +29
What to you mean? I of course will trust deeze-nuts-23223’s blurry screenshot of a random twitter account more! They tell it like it is
29
Terrafire123 1 day ago +10
I trust Deeze-nuts-23223 because he was extra condescending and wrote in a very authoritative way.
10
StaticBroom 1 day ago +135
I mean…you can’t put it on the internet if it’s not true.
135
Ziazan 1 day ago +78
this must be true because its on the internet
78
belkarbitterleaf 1 day ago +60
That's how we ended up with Truth social, everything there is 100% vetted and confirmed to be accurate. /S
60
Stoner420Steve 1 day ago +27
If it wasn’t all true why would the name it truth social? It’s not called lie social!!
27
truthovertribe 1 day ago +7
By The Father of Lies himself.
7
ideagle 1 day ago +16
But what if it's prefixed with BREAKING:
16
Successful_Cress6639 1 day ago +5
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING🚨🚨🚨 Authorities report that prefacing a twitter post with "breaking" adds no additional credibility unless the word is in all caps and accompanied by at least two siren emojis
5
SirStrontium 23 hr ago +2
I feel like I'm going insane when I see tweets like that with 30,000 upvotes on the front page of listnook, and it's just some random twitter account, no link to any news articles whatsoever
2
grey_hat_uk 1 day ago +9
>from random Twitter accounts That is the US president and his advisers, show some respect.
9
KubrickMoonlanding 1 day ago +21
These days I only trust tmz for my news
21
SeaworthinessSome454 1 day ago +37
One report shouldn’t be treated as gold with this sort of unreliable intel.
37
take_five 1 day ago +24
Axios has already been wrong multiple times with independent unidentified scoops in this war
24
Ok_Presentation_2346 1 day ago +11
One reliable source is good. Multiple reliable sources are better.
11
deHaga 1 day ago +16
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/4/27/iran-war-live-araghchi-to-meet-putin-trump-says-tehran-can-call-for-talks >Iran war live: ‘Excessive US demands’ led to failure of talks – Araghchi
16
cats_catz_kats_katz 1 day ago +9
It’s the “times of India”, sir.
9
[deleted] 1 day ago +10
[removed]
10
Jackadullboy99 1 day ago +7
Watch those markets POP!
7
Jdobbs07 1 day ago +62
Axios has been a pretty solid reporter during the war, the main problem with if Iran actually offered this is the US and Israel will not accept anything that doesn’t neuter there nuclear program
62
grahamfiend2 1 day ago +34
You sure about that?
34
Krybbz 1 day ago +32
That’s the whole point of contention
32
sad_bear_noises 1 day ago +14
They probably won't end the war without accomplishing any of their goals. Although claiming a victory by opening a strait that wouldn't have closed if they hadn't started the war in the first place would be on brand.
14
TheGodPePe 1 day ago +50
Huh? Axios has been dog shit. They always release these articles right before market open or close. Often time there sources are Whitehouse officials who are clearly lying. Even the new Axios article overstates the objective.
50
ExRays 1 day ago +51
>They always release these articles right before market open or close. Axios is based in Arlington VA in the eastern time zone and they consistently release articles at the start of the standard workday, which is before markets open. Correlation does not automatically mean nefariousness.
51
Seanspeed 1 day ago +25
Axios are reporting news. That's how news organizations work. Just because we suspect something the President says is a lie does not mean the most professional move is to not report it. That's not how news works. What the President says is news, whether it's true or not. You guys are just so used to how social media works that you've completely forgotten how proper news outlets work. Y'all have way more authoritarian tendencies than y'all realize. You favor news only being able to report the information you WANT them to report, and not just reporting the information they have. This is exactly how authoritarian people ultimately end up banning free press. Same exact mindset.
25
H3AVYCAT 1 day ago +22
>just because we suspect something the president says is a lie does not mean the most professional move is to not report it. The AP has two official sources speaking on condition of anonymity. I have no issues with them writing a story. My issue is with the headline and the story they chose to write. The headline makes it sound like this is an easy move, US lifts the blockade and the war ends right? Well their own article has this quote > The official, who is involved in mediation efforts, also said Iran insisted on ending the U.S. blockade before new talks and that Pakistan-led mediators are trying to bridge significant gaps between the countries. It sounds to me like the headline could easily have been - *Iran says No Peace talks until US Lifts Blockade* That’s why so many of us feel like the media is working overtime to make it seem like there is a conclusion to this conflict right around the corner. I mean, which is it? Is the straight open and the conflict over if the US lifts the blockade, or is that just the necessary precursor to even *start* talking about a peace? Their headlines, their past failures week after week, and their continued use of extremely optimistic headlines is borderline criminal.
22
Available_Finger_513 1 day ago +41
Axios has been pretty solid at reporting trump lies as truths They have been awful
41
mikebootz 1 day ago +19
What lies did they report as facts? I haven’t seen any axios reporting on this stuff that I can remember
19
Apprehensive-Log3638 1 day ago +19
The real issue is the IRGC. I have no clue why Western media has been parroting nonsense propaganda from Iran. US and Iran were within inches of a deal, then the IRGC basically thru a fit forcing the Iranian delegation to return. US tries to meet Iran half way with the ceasefire terms. Lebanon was not included, US forces Israel to agree to a cease fire, then US overlooks original straight terms, allowing Iran to at least control shipping lanes and charge a fee in exchange for blocking Iranian ports. Makes sense from US position, want to exert some pressure, but also prevent military material shipments until their is peace. IRGC implodes the negotiations and gesture US offered. Western media then reports how US did X, Y, Z. No, US was negotiating in good faith with the Political leadership, the IRGC just imploded negotiations.
19
Jdobbs07 1 day ago +17
Yeah I agree there I really don’t think the IRGC is going to care about opening the strait. From some of the stuff that came out of the first round of peace talks was that Pakistan spent more time mediating in fighting in the Iran delegation than they did mediating discussions between the US and Iran
17
the_last_0ne 1 day ago +12
Can you share how or where you learned all this? Because I hadn't heard at least half of it, and although I dont trust Iran, I also have extreme doubts that the current US administration could ever negotiate in good faith.
12
stonk_fish 1 day ago +7
Vahidi is using this to consolidate power from the civilian leadership. He has been making them look weak and ineffective and having control of the military which is the only way to really control access to the Strait is giving him a lot of leverage. Only way he agrees to any deal is where he gets a lot of concessions AND gets guarantees from 3rd parties against any further US/Israel action which will never happen.
7
Seanspeed 1 day ago +19
Thing is, most all that information you just talked about - none of that is actually confirmed information. That's what you suspect actually happened, but because of how unreliable both parties are here, nobody really seems to know specifically what's going on. But simply reporting what somebody says is legitimate news, whether what they say is true or not.
19
qTp_Meteor 1 day ago +870
And without giving up any nuclear material or stopping enrichment. If trump agrees to it he is the biggest clown ever, it would basically mean nothing happened but destroying military equipment on both sides and troops dying
870
kblkbl165 1 day ago +216
He already got a lot of money out of it, as did his peers, so it looks like a done deal?
216
curious_dead 1 day ago +143
Cost of living increasing for millions of people, billions in spent equipment and ammo, billions in damage to infrastructure (military and otherwise), lives lost, people wounded... truly a master concept of a plan!
143
Jonesdeclectice 1 day ago +80
> Cost of living increasing for ~~millions~~ **billions** of people FTFY
80
Difficult-Square-689 1 day ago +28
The US president usually only has an indirect impact on oil prices.  This time, though...
28
Ok_Presentation_2346 1 day ago +295
He already was the biggest clown for discarding the previous nuclear agreement. Anything at this point is damage control.
295
Skoonks 1 day ago +53
This is the best deal he will EVER get. Trump's already the world's biggest clown for starting this war.
53
The12thSpark 1 day ago +20
Which means he just might Just judging by the number of things that he will destroy just to save and claim praise for it
20
zkrooky 1 day ago +6
He'll have stopped 9 wars. Next he'll stop the war against NATO.
6
Bender_2024 1 day ago +9
>And without giving up any nuclear material or stopping enrichment. If trump agrees to it he is the biggest clown ever Iran is willing to open the straight and talk about nuclear material at a later date. Trump would certainly lose face but it wouldn't be a total failure.
9
qTp_Meteor 1 day ago +8
They were willing to talk before too. Willingness to talk means jackshit as we've seen time and time again
8
green_dragon527 1 day ago +2
I am willing to accept a million dollars from Bender_2024 and discuss returning it later /s 😜
2
StillWastingAway 19 hr ago +2
They agreed for a fair deal before, the US tried to strong arm them into throwing away thier missile capabilities and any sense of sovereignty.
2
VanCityPhotoNewbie 22 hr ago +2
The toll will still be inplace, Iran will have control of the strait, and their oil is no longer sanctioned and they do not have to give up their nuclear program. Now the only thing I assume that will change is the US can go back to being the petrodollar and oil will flow through in enough time to drop in prices by fall For Trump he might take the deal.
2
Havanatha_banana 21 hr ago +2
Yes, but worrying about that is sunk cost fallacy.
2
MaybeTheDoctor 21 hr ago +2
But did you see the distraction with the arranged gunman they all knew about before ?? You are supposed to focus on that, so we forget about the war that was supposed to distract you from Epstein files, where he is mentioned a million times, but hey nothing to see there.
2
you_killed_my_ 17 hr ago +2
BUT YOU AREN'T TALKIN ABOUT HIM RAPING KIDS NOW ARE YA?!
2
Altruistic_Finger669 16 hr ago +2
Im pretty confident the final deal will include promises that iran wont produce a nuclear weapon but they been promising that for years
2
AndroidOne1 1 day ago +74
News snippet: CAIRO (AP) — Iran has offered to end its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for the U.S. lifting its blockade on the country and an end to the war, while proposing that discussions on the larger question of its nuclear program would come in a later phase, two regional officials said Monday. U.S. President Donald Trump seems unlikely to accept the offer, which was passed to the Americans by Pakistan and would leave unresolved the disagreements that led the U.S. and Israel to go to war on Feb. 28. With a fragile ceasefire in place, the U.S. and Iran are locked in a standoff over the strait, through which a fifth of the world’s traded oil and gas passes in peacetime. The U.S blockade is designed to prevent Iran from selling its oil, depriving it of crucial revenue while also potentially creating a situation where Tehran has to shut off production because it has nowhere to store t
74
New-Eye9930 1 day ago +535
If this happens there almost certainly will be another war in the future, because nothing will have changed that caused this war in the first place. Although they have been significantly set back, Iran will return to develop its ballistic missile and nuclear program, and Israel would attack Iran again in the future.
535
toggiz_the_elder 1 day ago +191
What caused the war in the first place?
191
New-Eye9930 1 day ago +167
The main reasons from Israels side is Iran's refusal to stop building nuclear weapons, and attempts to resume the nuclear program, even in locations where bunker busters can't reach, and the fact that the ballistic missile program which was accelerating to the point where it could in the future overwhelm Israels defenses and potentially even be comparable in firepower to a nuke.
167
AccountantsNiece 1 day ago +160
The development of their nuclear programme in concert with their network of non-state terror actors in the region really puts a fine point on this, as there are fears that Iran, who has already taken the unprecedented step of arming these groups with ballistic missiles, would in the future potentially give them a dirty bomb as well.
160
duaneap 1 day ago +9
Well, the generals taking greater control than the clerics would likely eventually lead to less direct support of terror proxies but I have a feeling it will also drastically accelerate nuclear proliferation. But I also kinda think that’s unavoidable at this point.
9
AssistanceCheap379 1 day ago +27
Even Iran wouldn’t put a nuclear bomb in the hands of people they can’t fully control. It would be a way to secure Iran from attacks and give them a better hand when it comes to sanctions and deals, since it has such a strong hold over the strait of Hormuz. Of course it would be entirely smoke, but having a nuclear bomb brings a lot more stability to your nation than not having one and can create some new negotiations. But honestly, it seems like the only reason Iran even wants to have a nuclear bomb is so that it can secure a long term peace deal with potential enemies besides Israel. And with Israel the Iranian government seems to want to have an unstable relationship that is mostly peaceful. Both governments need it since it keeps them in power. Peace between them would see both governments collapse. But overall, even the most h******* Iranian religious nutcase in government knows that giving a nuclear bomb to people they can’t fully control will come to bite them in the ass and destroy the country. They know that once it’s out of their hands, it’s no longer possible to control no matter what and gives the group they hand it to an extremely powerful tool that can be used against Iran. It’s kinda like saying the US would give one of their allies access to nuclear weapons instead of having nuclear weapons in an allies country, but completely under US control.
27
rononoadakait 1 day ago +41
Nukes would give carte blanche to Iran to fund proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel with no consequences. Remember it was Iran itself which actively sought conflict with Israel this way. Israel would end up becoming another India - constantly attacked by terrorist proxies while being unable to strike the head of the snake (Iran) due to nukes
41
baldobilly 22 hr ago +5
Why can’t Iran just keep to themselves? I’m no fan of Israel but why does Iran keep funding terrorism against a country they don’t even share a border with? All it does is wasting money and inviting retaliatory strikes. 
5
rononoadakait 22 hr ago +19
most msulim countries used to hate and be in conflict with Israel, ironically except for iran which was a major us/israel ally when ruled by the pahlavi dynasty But with the islamic revolution, iran is now ruled by a theocratic regime who considers it a divine duty to fight israel and reclaim "msulim lands" from them Again ironically, most other msulim countries today (uae, egypt, jordan, saudi, syria etc) are no longer in conflict with israel. even if not on friendly terms, these countries not fighting israel either directly or indirectly Iran is the only one doing so
19
MiserableTennis6546 1 day ago +9
And besides, dirty bombs don't work. They only exist in propaganda. Most of the nuclear material degrades and is lost before it can do any damage at all. Just a spectacular waste of very valuable nuclear material.  If you want to kill lots of people, just using a regular bomb would be much more effective.
9
cheesenachos12 1 day ago +71
If only there were some program or agreement that limited Iran's nuclear refinement...
71
bobrobor 1 day ago +31
Wait how? We heard from both Israel and the US many months before this war that the previous war completely obliterated Irans capabilities. Are you telling us they lied after the first war but now we can be sure of an answer?
31
Omateido 1 day ago +23
We’ve also heard from Netanyahu for literally decades now that Iran was weeks out from developing a nuclear weapon. This is clown reasoning from clown supporters of a genocidal regime.
23
smors 1 day ago +30
The hypocrisy of having your own "secret" nuclear program while complaining about other countries doing the same is staggering.
30
Seanspeed 1 day ago +50
No, it's really not. Iran has a literal state policy of wanting to destroy Israel. They are not even shy about it. Israel has nuclear weapons because it has been surrounded by countries(and Iran) who have at some point or another made it their goal to eradicate Israel. Iran has no such excuse. And being as belligerent as they are, it's pretty damn valid for Israel to not want Iran to have them. Iran literally arms Israel's immediate neighbors with thousands of missiles to fire at Israel. Constantly. This shouldn't be hard to understand at all. Y'all are just really bad at understanding how situations are not all the same, outside some surface element. smh
50
fightmaxmaster 1 day ago +38
Because way too many people hate nuance, or lack the ability/patience to reason things through. Two things that have very different arguments against them get boiled down to "both are equally bad", because that's a lot easier to cram into a brain than "life is messy, X is bad for some reasons, Y is bad for different reasons, both need different approaches, difference nuances, we can understand part of X and less of Y", etc. You're right, it's not hard to understand, not really, it's just that too many people can't be bothered to try.
38
bobrobor 1 day ago +24
Does Israel not have a state policy of wanting to destroy Iran? I thought they said that many times over in the speeches that they cannot abide by having the constant threat hanging over their head? Wouldn’t that mean that the only solution is for both sides to disarm?
24
Quickjager 23 hr ago +5
Why would Israel disarm? They haven't shook the nuclear stick at anyone. If you mean conventionally disarm, that might be the dumbest thing I've heard.
5
Tuco_sala 1 day ago +14
Epstein Files
14
duaneap 1 day ago +2
That’s the reason for the timing for sure but I suspect that this was coming regardless.
2
[deleted] 1 day ago +14
[removed]
14
Stable_Orange_Genius 1 day ago +3
Since its foundation, Israel has been in many many wars. Way more than Iran. The only other war Iran was in was with Iraq and that was a defensive war
3
Final-Language7378 1 day ago +56
It’s possible there will not be enough public support to go back into a war with Iran. This was seen as Israel’s last chance to use American power against Iran, so expect Israel to not accept the terms.
56
New-Eye9930 1 day ago +10
Oh, of course Israel will be against it since it doesn't care that much about the straights of Hormuz, so it won't gain anything from this, if anything it's might even be better for them if it is closed.
10
CrunchyCds 1 day ago +46
Dude there wasn't even support when they started. The news has glossed over it but the war is ILLEGAL. Trump WAS supposed to go through Congress to even do the strikes. Republicans are being lawless and getting away with it.
46
mesopotato 1 day ago +35
That just doesn't happen anymore. Our last formal declaration of war was WW2. Our last request for Congressional approval was Obama in 2013.
35
Little-Stage1948 1 day ago +29
He did tell congress within 48 hours of the strike, which is legal under war powers act
29
blackrock13 1 day ago +16
Trump never declared war though (hell, the last time Congress did was during WWII). The War Powers Resolution Act allows presidents to order troops into action and requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours, which was done. So what was illegal?
16
Ulricchh 1 day ago +3
Or vice-versa don't forget that eventually hezbollah will rebuild with iran support and they may attack whenever. It's a never ending cycle in which the whole region is stuck sadly.
3
__Yakovlev__ 1 day ago +3
The main difference is that in the case of a future war there will almost certainly be an alternative to the strait of Hormuz up and running. So Iran would also be giving up their biggest bargaining chip in such a scenario. 
3
No-Objective9174 1 day ago +33
How can we justify a $2 Trillion military budget without wars though?
33
Boys4Ever 1 day ago +22
Doubt this is seen as a win by those who started this therefore blockade goes on.
22
FungusFly 1 day ago +21
I’ll believe it when I see the Lego video.
21
Initial_Fill_2655 1 day ago +2
So many to choose from- Iranian shares or us?
2
Jerm8888 1 day ago +21
Iran: how about we just call it a day and go home?
21
snowyetis3490 1 day ago +31
Iran must all laugh at their round table before issuing these statements. Like deep long belly laughs.
31
eisbock 20 hr ago +7
Probably less laughter than you'd imagine, considering all the dead bodies and destroyed equipment/infrastructure.
7
EffektieweEffie 1 day ago +69
The strait isn't the main issue for the US, the nuclear program is and always was. So they won't accept it. The strait closure is however an issue for the rest of the world and Iran knows this - hoping that this offer will have other countries put pressure on the US to remove the blockade. I don't know how much runway Iran has left though, the blockade is doing massive economic damage to them likely worse than any bombs did. At this rate I don't think any agreements will be reached unless the IRGC is wiped and that will be messy beyond what the US or Iran will be able to stomach.
69
Fit-Ad-835 1 day ago +44
Yeah the thing about the economy is true. But it is more complicated than that Currently the government said inflation has reached 50% (it could be higher for sure). No economy can last long like this. Each USD is around 160,000 Tomans, and they are getting hurt millions of dollars each day just by blocking the internet for people, markets and companies. But at the same time, even if they go bankrupt, they are never going to announce it to the world. They would keep their cool, put boots on the face of protestors and survive as long as they can. Which means i doubt they will surrender in less than 2 or three months, let alone two or three weeks.
44
CJKay93 1 day ago +23
> No economy can last long like this. Iranian GDP per capita is 10x Afghanistan's and 2x North Korea's; a militant regime doesn't need an economy to survive, it only needs weapons and a reason not to put them down.
23
cool_lemons 1 day ago +24
I'm pretty sure they want avoid becoming North Korea if they can help it.
24
smors 1 day ago +24
>The strait isn't the main issue for the US, the nuclear program is and always was. Why did the US then not stick to the agreement about the nuclear program.
24
Seanspeed 1 day ago +42
Because it had Obama's signature on it.
42
JustSikh 15 hr ago +2
As insane as this is to believe, it’s unfortunately the truth. Crazy Americans!
2
Plenty_Fondant_951 1 day ago +15
And also why does this poster say "always was" as if the POTUS who unilaterally dragged us all into this war didn't give a different reason daily for 2 weeks?
15
EffektieweEffie 1 day ago +8
That would probably have been best, not saying what they did was the right choice, but they had reasons beyond purely nuclear weapons - Iran had access to large amounts of money to fund their terror proxies due to the deal as well as accelerating their ballistic missile program. All of which are part of the current US demands to stop the war. The outlook was that when the deal expired, they'd have ICBMs as delivery methods for nukes ready to go when they inevitably go for it.
8
Consistent_Pitch782 1 day ago +6
This is due to Iran's oil storage reaching capacity. Once that happens,Iran will have to shut in wells, which will cause long-term damage to their production capacity. The fallout from that will be sure to get the IRGC riled up. Once the real decision-makers feel pressure, there will be a chance for change. But with this administration, who knows how it will go.
6
yurnxt1 1 day ago +56
Pressure is working. Basically Iran only has so much capacity to store oil something like 13 million barrels before they either have to shut their wells down causing permanent damage that can take a year and lots of money to repair/replace or simply burning off excess which is an environmental disaster for Iran and a waste of money. An oil economy can't afford either option. They are reaching their capacity to store oil in the next say 5-15 days and are running out of options which will cause them to capitulate if the blockade held.
56
Seanspeed 1 day ago +34
Agreeing to this would be a win for Iran. These are not terms Iran are coming with to be reasonable. This would essentially be a massive humiliation for Trump if he agrees to it.
34
FrismFrasm 1 day ago +4
As somebody curious but ignorant on the matter; can Iran not ship out oil by land for sale, or even just agreed upon storage in friendly nearby countries? I know this is likely more costly and the ocean shipping lines are already established and more efficient, but I would think to avoid something as desperate as burning off the oil this could be an option, no?
4
No_Worldliness_7106 1 day ago +10
To where? There isn't really a pipeline to China or India from Iran. And by truck they still can't outpace their storage capacity filling. And even by truck, to where? Afghanistan? Pakistan? It's definitely not going to go west, and east is full of all those mountains that everyone says is Iran's great benefit and defense, but turns out moving massive logistical movements of oil through them is really hard actually. Their entire economy is already geared towards moving the oil to the gulf, rerouting would be near impossible when they are already under such severe economic pressure.
10
Griffisbored 1 day ago +7
The amounts of oil are too massive for any type of transport other than boat or pipelines. They don't have any pipelines set up currently, so that leaves boats as the only option. All of their boats must pass through the Straits of Hormuz to deliver oil to foreign customers.
7
Idosol123 1 day ago +10
Sounds great, is there a source saying it'll happen in the next 5-15 days ?
10
Deditch 1 day ago +9
don't worry 5-15 days from now they'll also be 5-15 days from collapse so at worst its 30 days
9
the_forgotten_tb46 1 day ago +22
Its a Bait and switch  offer to open up the strait then once the blockade is removed and all the Iranian tankers leave they will reintroduce the toll system  Once the US restarts the blockade they will have to start from day 0 again and it will take another 1 month before iran trys to negotiate again
22
LewisKIII 1 day ago +7
Well, how are they going to open the Strait of Hormuz? As a toll booth system that runs through their territorial waters? That's unacceptable to the world if that's their reopening term. On average 100 to 130 ships transit Hormuz everyday when it is open and free navigation as it was before this war. Why would Iran give up their biggest leverage tool when they have been demanding the US agree to their ten point agreement? Only thing I can think of is they don't want to shut in their oil wells that will screw up their production because they are running out of storage space! Heck they bought or are bringing like a 30 year old tanker to fill for storage, but it's only going store two days worth! They also could be concerned about the US snatching a lot of the oil on the water which is like over 180 million barrels! US could snatch the unflagged ships and claim them, and any other flagged ship they could hold or make it sail to a port. Iran's economy is fully dependent on oil so this could be causing more pain than many thought it would. If they had to shut in wells they won't get their preshut in production levels back and that's not good so that could be on their minds as well.
7
imbakinacake 1 day ago +6
Lol Time for the market pump
6
Longjumping-Hat7564 1 day ago +87
>U.S. President Donald Trump seems unlikely to accept the offer Ofcourse- It is too sensible as a decision to accept. Part of me wonders if Donny wants to keep oil above 100/barrel, so Russian economy can sustain. They're in complete shambles and Oil's the only way they survive.
87
cytokine7 1 day ago +54
It’s not sensible, this actually shows that the blockade is working and the IRGC is getting desperate. 
54
GotItFromEbay 1 day ago +13
Sir, this is Listnook. The IRGC could all surrender, Iran could go back to how it was pre-1979, and they give the US all the oil it has until the end of time and 99% of Listnookors would still spin it as a US strategic defeat.
13
myersjw 1 day ago +8
As opposed to the whopping objective winning that’s currently occurring? The one that accomplishes none of the juggled reasons claimed for starting this farce? lol contrarians could watch the current admin take a dump in their hands and clap then blame everyone else for not calling it genius. After ten years it’s wild watching people still make concessions for this comedy show
8
Dark_Shade_75 1 day ago +6
The blockade is working to ensure that... everything goes back to status quo from before the US started this war?
6
Little-Stage1948 1 day ago +29
How's it sensible? They continue with their nuclear program? Or they continue with bullshit negotiations as they import defensive equipment...Who the f*** would be dumb enough to take this offer?
29
nativeridge_ 1 day ago +24
100 percent this and chaos is the best cover for this Trump-Epstein Regime
24
autoreaction 1 day ago +21
He doesnt need a Epstein cover up, Epstein is over. I dont know what anybody is waiting for. Nothing will happen. Trumps only mission is to get as rich as possible, drain the US and punish Europe.
21
WeakTransportation37 1 day ago +3
So, I’m not sure offer was really made?? Is this for real? Maybe it is, but it looks like trump would turn it down anyway
3
thehairyhobo 15 hr ago +3
This is the best off ramp that the US would be foolish to not consider.
3
TheMartini66 1 day ago +10
They should troll Trump and offer to reopen the strait in exchange for the unredacted Epstein files.
10
Oceanbreeze871 1 day ago +6
Iran should demand Trump resign.
6
pistonkamel 1 day ago +5
Iran has run out of oil storage it seems
5
Jyosea 1 day ago +9
Yeah and stop killing your citizens you assholes.
9
ProbablyWrongAgain24 1 day ago +2
Like the way it was before?
2
ProfessionalNo5932 1 day ago +2
Listnook news is a step above NewsBreak.
2
MakimaGOAT 20 hr ago +2
we're just gonna have this back and forth for the next 2 years
2
MoogleStiltzkin 19 hr ago +2
so they claim. but then they continue with their nuclear weapons program, and proxy wars. this wolf hasn't changed at all after wearing sheeps clothing >\_>; people r asking the impossible. don't be naive. at most you will get is the lull before the storm. the usual stockpile/prepare, strike, play dead, repeat.... i wish they did end the war and go back to being a normal country, but this is not their thing..... instead their civilians are held hostage along for the ride the people at the top running the country are spearheading x-x;
2
Charles10023 16 hr ago +2
How about we bomb the shit out of you for 10 years?
2
Kabloozey 16 hr ago +2
Can the US government even pull out now in a way that doesnt stink of defeat? If they pulled out now the situation would be less strategically advantageous than when the war started. Obviously there's a "cutting their losses" argument im just not sure i can see them withdrawing without something to show for it. That which is left of the IRGC leadership seems to be more hardline than the prior. The population has likely been radicalized further against Israel and the US. (Understandably given the collateral) Like no strategic wins have been made other than taking out a large swath of military resources. Those can be replenished though quickly enough with support from China and Russia. Would love to hear people's thoughts.
2
shortgamegolfer 15 hr ago +2
Not sure how anything will get done without a major civil war in Iran first.
2
No-Faithlessness2879 1 day ago +7
Market Manipulation Mondays FTW
7
← Back to Board