· 144 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 11, 2026 at 11:30 PM

Iran warns of attack on US warship as peace talks open in Pakistan

Posted by Playful_Leg7143


Iran warns of attack on US warship as peace talks open in Pakistan
Yahoo News
Iran warns of attack on US warship as peace talks open in Pakistan
Iran's Navy has warned a US warship against transiting the Strait of Hormuz, threatening an attack if it proceeds, as Tehran and Washington opened peace talks in Pakistan, Iranian state media reported...

🚩 Report this post

144 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
run_midnight 1 day ago +253
"don't touch the boats"
253
Southern_Loquat_4450 1 day ago +55
"Boats on the ground!!"
55
Active-Pineapple-252 1 day ago +36
I mean they are already at war
36
tampapat54 1 day ago +28
There’s “war” and then there’s war Sinking a US warship would upgrade this clusterfuck to the latter
28
WeSoSmart 1 day ago +17
Yeah like what? Ground invasion?
17
HoightyToighty 1 day ago +21
Dunno, maybe you could visit a liquor store in the DC area and ask our SecWar.
21
imthefakeagent 1 day ago +1
Heh
1
musiccman2020 1 day ago +7
They already killed their leader. Can't imagine they give a f***.
7
soapyhandman 1 day ago +5
Tend to agree. This has been very unpopular in the US and that puts real political restraint on what the Trump administration is willing to do. It sounds ridiculous but republicans are well aware of which way the wind is blowing. You add a sunk destroyer and dozens, potentially hundreds of dead US sailors to that mix, and it’s entirely possible that public opinion shifts just enough that escalation becomes politically tolerable.
5
beetrootdip 1 day ago +1
The Us started this with a bunch of targeted assassinations of civilians government officials. That is a war crime. How exactly is it escalation for Iran to target military assets deployed to the theatre to attack Iran and intercept Iranian weapons. That’s just like war 101
1
tampapat54 1 day ago +8
It’s not, the response from the US would be a further escalation that would take this to the point of no return. I’m not defending how this started, I’m reasoning that the response to that scenario would probably dwarf anything that’s happened so far Also, inb4 someone calls me a MAGA. I’m not, I’m just being realistic on how this would play out and it wouldn’t be good for us or for Iran
8
HiImDan 1 day ago +30
There's at war and there's at war. They don't want to see a "proportional" response. I don't think we want to see their response to that though.
30
Kaffe-Mumriken 1 day ago +8
I don’t think the IRGC gives a shit about their citizens if that’s what you mean
8
Chillers 1 day ago -16
Because it's totally fine sinking Iran's navy.
-16
tampapat54 1 day ago +26
I don’t think that’s the point he’s getting at. The point is a proportional response from the US in that scenario would probably be indiscriminate carpet bombing of Tehran or some other unilateral escalation of the conflict
26
run_midnight 1 day ago +16
Some people have never heard of Operation Praying Mantis
16
tampapat54 1 day ago +15
Back when operations didn’t sound like they were thought up of by a 13 year old in a COD lobby
15
Shambhala87 1 day ago +1
I literally just heard Bill Clinton talking about it like two hours ago.
1
zokka_son_of_zokka 1 day ago +2
...That's not "proportionate"
2
tampapat54 1 day ago +2
It is if you try to think how this regime would react
2
HiImDan 1 day ago +13
No one said it was fair.
13
EternalNewCarSmell 1 day ago +6
It could absolutely be worse for them. It would simultaneously get worse for the US too, but clearly no one in charge is going to let that be a barrier.
6
Thuradzon 1 day ago +15
The US is testing the ceasefire with Iran. If they attempt to shoot a couple cruise missiles, ballistic missile or anti ship missiles or drone barrage towards them. It won’t end well. You think we give Iran a proportional response? It’ll be a slaughter
15
After_Lie_807 1 day ago +12
People don’t get this is the most tepid “war” the US could wage on another country…bombing from the air and a commander in chief that wobbles back and forth on what he wants to achieve. With a solid executive hell bent on achieving a military goal the US would have boots on the ground chipping away at Iranian territory until it’s all controlled by the various branches of the US military
12
milkhotelbitches 1 day ago +18
>With a solid executive hell bent on achieving a military goal the US would have boots on the ground chipping away at Iranian territory At the cost of thousands of lives of US soldiers and billions more dollars. You think this war is unpopular now? Frankly, I don't think Trump has the political capital to do it.
18
toxic0n 1 day ago +13
By your estimation, how many soldiers would it take to occupy Iran? I'd say 2 to 3 million
13
SsurebreC 1 day ago +19
> US would have boots on the ground chipping away at Iranian territory until it’s all controlled by the various branches of the US military I heard this before when this happened in the country to the left and the right of Iran. It didn't work out. The US military is really good at destruction. As it should, since that's it's job. We tend to win straight engagements. Building the country up, making it stable, etc. We have a horrible track record of this. Fighting against the local fighters? Also horrible track record.
19
IntroductionAgile372 1 day ago -2
We took both countries militarily and controlled them. Iraq wasn't really a failure since they're not actively hostile and we still have bases there. Afghanistan is another story but that's because it's not a country with an identity. Iran has citizens that would welcome US overthrowing the regime by an overwhelming majority
-2
SsurebreC 1 day ago +12
> We took both countries militarily Nobody is disputing this. As I said, we're really good at coming in and blowing up the enemy military. That's not the issue. The issue is what happens next. > Iraq wasn't really a failure Depends on why we went in in the first place. Nuclear weapons weren't found. Neither was anthrax. What we found are the old weapons we sold them years ago. The country wasn't stabilized and it gave us ISIS. Around 200,000 dead. I don't even know how many were wounded, displaced, not to mention the money wasted and for what? To kill literally one guy and maybe a handful of members of his family? Worth it? Especially when Iran - and Saudi Arabia - are trying to influence the country all while Kurds are trying to carve up the territory in the North. > Afghanistan is another story but that's because it's not a country with an identity. Very true. Iraq isn't a country either. A foreigner drew a map that united 3 major tribes and gave the guns to the smaller one. > Iran has citizens that would welcome US overthrowing the regime by an overwhelming majority I heard this before only the quote was "We Will Be Greeted As Liberators". It didn't work out. Why? Because we started to kill the civilians (and destroy their stuff plus all the raping didn't help). If the current administration is threatening to destroy civilian sectors - power plants, bridges, etc - then you'll have a population that'll be turned against you. Don't forget that while Iranians probably hate their government, they very likely don't want to be killed by foreigners either. This is particularly considering the anti-Semitic and anti-US propaganda they've been fed for decades. You start killing the civilians and the relevant infrastructure and they'll join their shitty government. Iran wasn't a threat and the previous plan under Obama worked better. Their currency collapsed, they had protestors. That was the height of support and what did we do? We started screwing it all up. Instead of coming in with AID - including water - we came in with bombs. It didn't work out very well. You start giving Iranians hope and they'll turn on their dictators. Right now they're not going to do anything and the local population has a choice of their local leaders or "foreigners". You think they'll pick the foreigners? Particularly considering the propaganda they've been exposed to that's now coming true whenever we kill any civilian or bomb a non-military target?
12
milkhotelbitches 1 day ago +13
>Iran has citizens that would welcome US overthrowing the regime by an overwhelming majority Completely delusional. Read what the US commanders had to say about the mission to rescue the downed pilot. He said that everyone in the area who had guns were shooting them at us. Doesn't sound like a grand welcoming, does it? Why the hell would they support a foreign invasion? We just threatened to end their entire civilization. This is existential for them. They will fight to the death.
13
Acrobatic-Example-19 1 day ago
You missed the part where Iranians who supported the US were actively blocking the Iranians who were hunting the Fighter Pilot. Some Iranians even helped hide the position of the pilot and WSO.
0
MinimumJust2808 18 hr ago +1
Trump will get the job half done, get bored with it, and claim we won and then leave hundreds of billions of dollars in equipment behind along with all the US soldier and civilians he can't be bothered with withdrawing, just like in Afghanistan.
1
[deleted] 1 day ago +2
[deleted]
2
Waaghra 1 day ago +6
A lot of people have absolutely no idea how big Iran is. It’s like 2 and a half times the size of Texas. It is a large country.
6
Alert-Algae-6674 1 day ago -9
The Strait of Hormuz is the only leverage they have so they will give everything to keep it. I don’t think they will directly attack any US warship but they will continue to attack commercial ships that travel through. The US ships will probably have interceptor missiles to defend the strait but we’ll see if some Iranian drones or missiles will make it through or not Also US is holding itself a higher moral standard to follow compared to the IRGC. America is refraining from massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destroy Iran (although Trump hinted at it) because it may turn opinion of more Iranian citizens against the US and Israeli intervention. Trump and Netanyahu started the war because they saw a golden opportunity when Khamenei started losing support among Iranians. They don’t want to throw that away and turn Iran into a more radicalized and anti-Western place
-9
NateBerukAnjing 1 day ago +3
Do you watch fox news?
3
AcerolaUnderBlade 1 day ago +11
>Also US is holding itself a higher moral standard to follow compared to the IRGC. America is refraining from massive attacks on civilian infrastructure to destroy Iran What???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
11
Ricklames 1 day ago +3
Did the IRGC not slaughter thousands by their own admission? Trump is a moron but c’mon.
3
MojaMonkey 1 day ago +1
Estimates put the US at 1500 Iranian civilians killed so far with 26,000 injuries. Im not sure moral standard is the right thing to be applying here.
1
Ricklames 1 day ago +2
Estimates from whom? Estimates put IRGC murders at 30k in mid-March… Both are completely abhorrent btw.
2
AcerolaUnderBlade 1 day ago -2
And the US did not killed millions in other country in the past 60 years?? C'mon man. Don't be like that. You guys bomb hundred of children in the first minute of the war and call it a mistake. Lmao
-2
HoightyToighty 1 day ago +4
> And the US did not killed millions I understand that English is not your first language, but you'd need some data to support such an outlandish claim.
4
Ricklames 1 day ago +3
I didn’t vote trump into office my guy. Im not allowed to vote in U.S. elections lol Interesting to see you easily forgive IRGC killing people though. Very noble of you.
3
CincyBOO 1 day ago
While this is true from a global perspective the Iranian people themselves welcome the bombings to eradicate the weed that is IRGC
0
Alert-Algae-6674 1 day ago +1
The question is, how much US and Israeli bombing will start to turn an Iranian’s opinion against the intervention? That threshold would be different depending on the person since “Iranian people” are not 1 brain Those who are extremely passionate about overthrowing the regime would probably be willing to tolerate more intense US and Israeli civilian bombing but those near middle of the spectrum would probably not.
1
CincyBOO 1 day ago +1
Totally fair and I’ve seen those sentiments as well, is a complicated thing which I know is a dumb thing to say but it is
1
ReflectedImage 1 day ago +1
Well no, Iran can blow up the Gulf states: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates whenever it wants by targeting their water desalination plants with drone strikes.
1
Alert-Algae-6674 1 day ago +1
Yeah that is true but Strait of Hormuz is still their easiest and most efficient leverage. Because they don’t need that many missiles or drones to hit oil tankers traveling through the Strait. They are much closer to Iran mainland and almost impossible for anybody to intercept. But to hit Gulf States they need to use tens or hundreds at a time to overwhelm air defenses But difference might be that strikes on Gulf States can do actual lasting damage. The facilities that were already hit will need months to return to full operation. So I do expect if Iran gets desperate they may give all they have left to destroy oil, natural gas, and desalination infrastructure in the Gulf States
1
ReflectedImage 1 day ago +1
Most of the gulf states and most of the US bases in the area lack drone defences. Lot of US anti missile systems in the area have been blown up by drone strikes. Drones can fly too low to target. Not much thought was put into the war by the US.
1
Acrobatic-Example-19 1 day ago +1
Not for long. Zelensky and the Ukrainian Military are stepping in to help in that regard. After all, Iran and Ukraine are technically at war.
1
ReflectedImage 1 day ago +1
Eventually the Gulf states will get anti drone protections. But the war zone is significantly larger than Ukraine. It's more of a next year thing. The US bases in the areas are now basically craters. $0.8 trillion worth of damage is the current estimate.
1
letigre87 1 day ago +7
That's how guided bombs turn into unguided bombs
7
Capricore58 1 day ago +1
Drop a sun on them? Grandpa Buff would approve
1
StarSlayerX 1 day ago +68
The problems with Iran's military... decentralized so each cell operates independently and orders travel slow or fragmented.
68
Mist_Rising 1 day ago +52
That's not a problem for Iran, that's the solution to their obvious disadvantage in military operations.
52
Scriefers 1 day ago +32
No, its a rather serious problem for the future sovereignty of Iran and it's current power vacuum. Going to be a lot of infighting and serious fog of war confusion even after this conflict is 'resolved'
32
vadermustdie 1 day ago +41
You think Iran is thinking about governance problems in the future when an existential threat is staring down at them? They gonna think about that when they get there.
41
SirArthurPT 1 day ago +2
They basically ended up their existence trying to defend from an "existential threat". It's like the defense system of a thing to be its self-destruction button.
2
ABetterKamahl1234 1 day ago +4
That unfortunately appears to come from experience. The US is *awful* at this kind of war, a terrible track record all things considered. Regions fought like this had the best results. It's an extremely difficult type of war to fight as it's often "to the last man" fighting, not organized armies with heavy control chains. It's how the US pulling out often spelled collapse of their established systems and rapid replacement with previously opposing forces into power.
4
schuylkilladelphia 1 day ago +1
There's a power vacuum?
1
MrDerpGently 1 day ago +2
There is, even if the current crisis covers it up. There's no way you have that much destruction and loss of leadership/organization without a power vacuum of some sort. However, the odds are pretty good that that vacuum will be filled by IRGC under a vengeful, disfigured and grieving religious hardliner. 
2
K_305Ganster 1 day ago +1
A rather "serious" problem for layer is their immediate solution to their problem now. Segmented guerilla forces are way more powerful when youre the one being attacked.
1
Street_Anon 1 day ago +65
The same Iran, that bragged about attacking and sinking the USS Abraham Lincoln about five times now is saying this?
65
aluke000 1 day ago +14
They claimed they had hit it with missiles already during the early days of the conflict
14
freeblowjobiffound 17 hr ago +1
"laundry fire"
1
Zealousideal-Row419 1 day ago +39
I think that would be a grave mistake.
39
wdomeika 1 day ago +56
Interesting negotiating tactic.. "welcome to the peace talks... oh and we plan to attack your warship, you American dog
56
JimHalpertsUncle 1 day ago +68
My first question is: why is the USA warship in the strait? 
68
VTcamperguy 1 day ago +41
Opening the strait is a condition of the talks happening, so an American ship should be allowed to go through unimpeded.
41
musci12234 1 day ago +13
Yeah but you can't use that to move military assets around in a critical area or others will automatically think you are just using ceasefire to take hold of critical position.
13
Tumble85 1 day ago +51
Oh. But why is the strait closed?
51
EternalNewCarSmell 1 day ago +51
Well, you see- *Hey look, a distraction!* 
51
LongErza 1 day ago -11
Iranian blackmail tactic
-11
ItzChiips 1 day ago +7
Was it closed or open before the war started?
7
Major_Ad138 1 day ago +23
How dare they fight back strategically!
23
devi83 1 day ago -34
How dare we attack them after pursuing nukes and chanting Death to America!
-34
Major_Ad138 1 day ago +45
Deal was in place to restrict the access. Your President tore it up because Obama made the deal. No other reason. USA started trying to make your own deal so Trump could take credit then attacked the country, again, mid peace talks. USA then threatened to kill every single person in the country. You are not the good guys here.
45
BubonicBabe 1 day ago +4
How dare we break up a nuclear deal that a former president had already signed and they were complying with, you mean? Donald J Trump ruined the Iran nuclear deal so he could take Obamas name off of it and then offered Iran a 15 point plan that was basically the exact same deal HE fractured. As an American, f*** us. We’ve fucked so many other countries, however high our gas prices gets under this incompetent shit bag pedophile president should be the least of our karmic worries.
4
Tribound 1 day ago +11
I didn't know mean words are an existential threat to preemptively bomb a country.
11
devi83 1 day ago +2
I mean they supplied drones to Russia to help its invasion of Ukraine, seems like they are well beyond a words only country. They murdered tens of thousands of their own people just because they want a better government.... yeah big words country.
2
cogman10 1 day ago +1
Sure, and neither of those things are reasons why we did or should have started bombing them. China has provided missiles and parts to Iran and Russia, should we start bombing China now? India has also provided goods to Russia, should we start bombing India now? Israel has also provided weapons to Russia, should we start bombing Israel?
1
LostHisDog 1 day ago +14
If only we had some sort of deal in place that would have kept them from developing nukes and kept the strait open...
14
Tumble85 1 day ago +17
But what if a black dude wrote that agreement? 
17
LostHisDog 1 day ago +10
Well obviously anything is better than that... I mean, burn the f****** world down if needed... WW3 and the end of civilization is a small price to pay for... what is it now... owning the libs?
10
knotatumah 1 day ago +4
lol *allegedly*. But we've been doing that since Iraq for the last 20 years so nobody really buys it today.
4
JimHalpertsUncle 1 day ago +2
I just don’t see eye-to-eye with this perspective.  Yes Iran has its problem, but … “America first”? How so? It also doesn’t seem like there is any plan, and it’s impacting the entire world. 
2
devi83 1 day ago +1
I think its more of a no nukes for people willing to train suicide bombers.
1
JimHalpertsUncle 1 day ago +3
Haven’t heard anything about that in awhile. Still think that’s the reason? 
3
MrDerpGently 1 day ago +1
And yet, this is going to result in so many more nukes and suicide bombers.
1
JimHalpertsUncle 1 day ago +4
If we ignore whether or not it was a reasonable response can we discuss whether it was obviously going to be their response and therefore should have been predicted? 
4
huyphan93 1 day ago +2
Response to US's attacks. Anything else you are unclear about?
2
nthpwr 1 day ago +1
so Vance can intentionally derail the talks. They used the peace talk as a ruse to give their warships a free move on the chessboard and establish a position
1
Ultra_Metal 1 day ago +4
Because the US Navy has been enforcing freedom of navigation for the entire planet since the end of WW2.
4
JimHalpertsUncle 1 day ago +1
Yeah, but Vance is trying to get this situation solved up peacefully, apparently. 
1
Ultra_Metal 1 day ago +2
The deal is off. The Islamic Republic refuses to give up its nuclear program so Vance and the negotiating team went home.
2
JimHalpertsUncle 23 hr ago +2
I read it was 3/10 of their requirements. I think it’s just being framed as nuclear as that’s the hot topic. 
2
juho9001 1 day ago +1
Did he thank Iran?
1
boogi3woogie 1 day ago +5
Why not? It’s a free waterway.
5
unknownpoltroon 1 day ago +5
Was
5
musci12234 1 day ago +9
The issue is that when US first struck there were peace talks going on. If US moves military assets to a better position which they can only access due to ceasefire then that raises a question of "does US really want peace or is it just buying time to get more assets and better position for when conflict restarts? "
9
JimHalpertsUncle 1 day ago +3
But specifically at this moment, with regards to the ongoing “peace” talks. 
3
boogi3woogie 1 day ago +1
Iran can say all they want, It’s a free waterway. The US called Iran’s bluff. It looks like the strait is clear of mines. Iran can still mine the strait, but that would just be an escalation during a ceasefire and would give pretext for a coalition invasion.
1
MrDerpGently 1 day ago +1
So, tankers are moving again?
1
boogi3woogie 1 day ago +2
Tankers? Nope. Warships? Sure looks like it. If the US can demonstrate that the strait isn’t mined, then there is no reason for ships to sail that close to Iran. Iran is still able to shoot drones of course. But any such action during the ceasefire is blatant escalation and pretext for the US to actually start bombing iran seriously.
2
ABetterKamahl1234 1 day ago +3
It's not, it's territorial waters of 2 nations, and short in distance enough either nation can easily assume control. It's not international waters, the UN attempted to make it so. Coincidentally, the US was signatory to ensure that would *not* be imposed or recognized. The US *is* a big promoter of territorial water sovereignty.
3
jackinginforthis1 1 day ago -3
America stands up for free and open sea lanes in support of global trade
-3
JimHalpertsUncle 1 day ago +7
I disagree. The tariffs that were set were anti-global trade, and so is the rhetoric constantly spewed by the administration. 
7
jackinginforthis1 1 day ago +5
Ahem, free and open sea lanes. Physical travel over the ocean literally. Nothing to do with ports or “free trade” tariffs as such. 
5
ABetterKamahl1234 1 day ago +3
The US makes constant threat to the Suez Canal because they fear another nation would impede US traffic. They don't give a shit about other nations man. "free and open" is "our way, our direction, only". The US constantly speaks on the importance of territorial waters. The sea lane is in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. And by distance, they overlap the usual territorial waters distance. It's part of why Iran *can* close the straight, it's not that wide.
3
Defiant_Moment_5597 1 day ago +14
Interesting your mind went there and not “welcome to the peace talks.. we’re gonna ignore your requests and sail through anyway” It’s interesting
14
-TheExtraMile- 1 day ago +1
Well the US and their owner israel have attacked iran twice while negotiating.
1
Mana_Seeker 1 day ago -3
Ah yes, duality of Iran "Take this American scum" **proceeds to hit nearby neighbors and ransoms the world's energy supply chain** I'm surprised everyone dog-piled on ISIS but not Iran who's damaging the world's economy far more than ISIS ever did
-3
clevercookie69 1 day ago +11
Iran is doing what they said they would do if attacked. The reason people are not up in arms about what Iran is doing is because they were attacked without provocation. It's bullshit what USA/ Israel have done and they are the ones that have caused this f****** mess. They need to fix it quickly and eat some humble pie.
11
Alert-Algae-6674 1 day ago +4
Well if you’re a third party country, to solve the Strait of Hormuz problem you can either go all in on war with Iran or hope that US will eventually call it a day and end their war. The second option is still a possibility, if Trump claims that Iran has been damaged enough and declares victory Most countries prefer the choice where their soldiers would not have to be sent abroad and be potentially killed in war. With ISIS they were directly doing terrorist attacks against pretty much everybody including Iran and Russia and it wasn’t just economic damage so there was no room to compromise or negotiate But also Iran is a country of 90 million with a military of more than 500,000 personnel while ISIS was not even close to that. ISIS were merely insurgents and they were easy to defeat in the grand scheme of things. It didn’t cost countries that much to contribute to the effort to eliminate ISIS
4
Mist_Rising 1 day ago +11
Probably because the US and Israel caused this mess when they opted to assassinate the Iranian leader but failed to have a follow up plan for after. Bibi had a whole 4 point slide show and 2 of them were unfeasible. Which is great for Bibi, apparently Israel won't put him on trial until he's done warmongering, but it's pretty bad for everyone else because it turns out Iran doesn't like it when you assassinate their leader, blow up school children and then proceed to blow up their civilian infrastructure. So they shut the strait down and said "you want it opened, bend your knee or come and take it." But Israel can't take it, and Trump doesn't have the time to do it, he's got 60 days and he's done. Cue reality going: should have made a better plan. Side note, the US and Israel are acting more like ISIL then the Iranians are. The US is bombing civilians, destroying civilian infrastructure and general making life shit for everyone. Maybe a mirror would help the US? But either way, when you look more like ISIL than the other guy, your going to get the blame.
11
talcum-x 1 day ago +4
I feel like people were upset with how isis was damaging people. I don’t think I ever heard anyone comment on isis effecting the economy.
4
Fake_Citizen 1 day ago +8
The boats will start marching proportionally towards Tehran if Iran touches them
8
AboutNOut090 1 day ago +2
All sounds very peaceful.
2
WloveW 1 day ago +4
Does it have a minesweeper guiding it or have we determined that the mines in the straight were bullshit? 
4
nopigscannnotlookup 1 day ago +4
Ugh. Karma farming old news from hrs ago.
4
empowered676 1 day ago +3
Im sick of warnings Just do it already
3
superdupermensch 1 day ago +2
The Matador!...it's me!
2
Tehcuda 1 day ago +1
Maybe a dumb question but is there a way to see which ship?..
1
r10tm4ch1n3 1 day ago +5
Give it a goog.
5
Tehcuda 1 day ago +5
USS Frank E. Petersen (DDG-121) and USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112) To the other lazy folk like me lol
5
r10tm4ch1n3 1 day ago +2
Many a apreesh.
2
yosisoy 22 hr ago +1
"good luck"
1
Acrobatic-Example-19 1 day ago +1
Iran is about to have significant uptick of fatherless children.
1
brokeboipobre 1 day ago +1
Why are we negotiating peace talks. I thought Trump said we already won? Like 30 times now?
1
ABetterKamahl1234 1 day ago +1
It's the most won war of any war, ever.
1
pre_pun 1 day ago +1
Trumpic victories seem to be very flimsy
1
New_Combination_7012 1 day ago -8
So instead of negotiating opening of the strait, they’re just going to push through. Kind of negates the whole peace process.
-8
in_da_tr33z 1 day ago +27
Theyre trying to prove that Iran is bluffing about keeping the strait closed. They are daring Iran to prove they can stop an “unauthorized” vessel. If they can’t, it significantly diminishes their negotiating power.
27
IaMm1N3 1 day ago +10
I think that's what they are going for
10
knotatumah 1 day ago +3
Depends. Iran doesn't need to deter the US Navy, they need to deter civilian vessels. And since they dont need to actually *sink* anything and can use dirt-c**** technology (relatively speaking compared to things like jets or missiles.) But, even if they dont, its not really the act but the fear thats the primary motivator. As long as Iran remains a wildcard that the US can't directly control then anything is on the table.
3
Mist_Rising 1 day ago +2
The Iranians don't need to stop a US warship. They just need to sink the cargo and tanker ships. Unless the US plans to park multiple warships inside the range of death (the strait) permanently, or occupy parts of Iran, the iranian can shoot the ships it wants. And the second Israel (or the US) fucks up the peace treaty, Iran can unload a lot of harm on those US warships because they're in close enough to get massive amounts of firepower off a them. Space is king in defensive fire.
2
Scriefers 1 day ago +1
You think they're going to attack civilian ships with American war dogs swimming in the same waters during peace talks? You think they'll hit American ships passing the free strait? That'll just guarantee full scale conflict and Iranian occupation.
1
ABetterKamahl1234 1 day ago +4
You're missing the point. The straight is closed to any civilian ships that Iran doesn't permit. They don't *need* to sink a US warship to make it too dangerous to sail. Iran wins the argument by controlling who *ships* through the straight. And unless the US wants to man, commission, and place a sizeable portion of their navy along the whole of the straight, to eliminate any potential threat through pretty damn expensive defensive weapons with perfection (which isn't really statistically possible), then Iran wins the argument. Akin to someone trying to fight a bully but not being successful in making the bullied actually feel safe again. You didn't win if they still live in fear. It's also why when the US declared the straight open, ships didn't sail. Because the US couldn't ensure their safety and Iran, the threatening party to them openly wasn't intending to provide safe passage.
4
[deleted] 1 day ago +14
[deleted]
14
Gustomucho 1 day ago +9
They are trying at least, but I am not sure the commercial ships will follow.
9
Alive_Internet 1 day ago -2
Should have done this from the very beginning. There’s nothing Iran can do against the US military. It would be like an ant trying to attack an elephant.
-2
SapporoBiru 1 day ago +1
ah so remind us again why the US hasn't simply defeated Iran yet then? Didn't feel like it?
1
Mist_Rising 1 day ago
>There’s nothing Iran can do against the US military. Yeah and Afghanistan would never beat the Soviet Union or US. I mean, what's Afghanistan going to do, run into the mountains and turn the occupation into a bloody decade(s) long affair that ultimately ends with more Afghis dead than invaders but still costs the political willpower of the invaded thereby creating a situation wherein the extremists party end up in control and the invaders look like complete shmucks. ...nah, couldn't happen. Thank God Iran isn't even worse to invade than Afghanistan. I mean could you imagine a mountain terrain country with a largely unified culture and a decentralized military group with experience in Guerilla style warfare that could quickly move into those mountains to cause absolutely nightmarish experience for the invaders? Phew thank God that's not Iran.
0
BadgerDC1 1 day ago +10
The deal was the strait would open to start negotiations and Iran keeps their power plants at the rest of the gulf states keep their desalination plants. The fact thay the strait still isn't open isn't a great sign that negotiations will work.
10
← Back to Board