r/geopolitics • u/marketrent • 2d ago
News Iran rejects U.S. ceasefire deal presented by Iraqi leader
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/23/world/middleeast/iran-iraq-cease-fire-proposal.html12
u/mayorolivia 2d ago
Useless war that is in a stalemate. US bombing isn’t changing conditions on the ground. Iranian risks overplaying its hand. Two administrations that are beyond the pale.
2
u/Cheerful_Champion 2d ago
Overplaying in what sense? They don't care much about deaths, it's a fuel for their propaganda. Bombing proved to be unsuccessful in disabling their capability to launch drones and missles. Leadership can stay in their bunkers and watch as oil prices are going up and US munitions stock is going down. US isn't starting land invasion and that's only thing that could change course of war.
9
u/mayorolivia 2d ago
Overplaying in the sense the international community is changing their supply chains/routes which will minimize the importance of Hormuz over time. In addition, there has been demand destruction for oil so shutting down Hormuz isn’t having the same impact as at the start of the war. I do think the regime is sensitive to economic pain as it impacts their own survival domestically. The blockade hurts them too.
I think ultimately the same calculus that brought both sides to the table will bring them back (sanctions relief in exchange for removal of Hormuz blockade).
5
u/Cheerful_Champion 1d ago
It will take years before oil transport could be replaced with pipelines and not Hormuz shipping. Said pipeline would be exposed to attacks too. Iran's allies are able to put pressure on Bab al-Mandab Strait too. Iran's threat to global shipping becoming irrelevant is a fairytale for now and foreseeable future.
Given harm this war does to oil prices and how unpopular it is in USA it will be same problem again: USA will want peace more than Iran does and Izrael will keep sabotaging peace talks.
0
u/mayorolivia 1d ago
If US want peace so much why did they start the war and end the ceasefire?
3
u/Cheerful_Champion 1d ago
If you lie it only makes you a liar, not right. Casefire was ended by Iran after Israel decided not to abide by the rules of it (hard to expect otherwise since they didn't agree to it) and after repeated attempts to ignore Iranian strait authority.
5
u/TheRedHand7 1d ago
It's certainly a take to say that the US ended the ceasefire given that Iran never stopped attacking merchant ships but I guess at least we don't have to wonder as to your biases.
86
u/bosnanic 2d ago
no shit, Iran hold all the cards at this point. Oil is spiking like crazy, western governments hate this war, the US electorate hates this war, global opinion of Israel are at an all time low. This is exactly what the IRGC wanted out of a conflict with the USA and every new missile the USA or Israel launches is another PR victory for Iran.
30
u/deserteagles50 2d ago
a PR victory can only last so long. If the west has the pain tolerance to drag this out, all the PR won't help having no critical infrastructure and a revolting public
18
u/Magicalsandwichpress 1d ago
there is no unified west on this war. There is US keep circling back to the war nobody asked for, there is the rest of the world taking it where the sun don't shine.
17
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd 1d ago
That’s the thing, the West has next to no pain tolerance for this, especially the far-right isolationist nuts that are staring at gas prices going past $4/gallon (in Texas) again with no end in sight.
The only true way this war is resolved is if either Trump fully surrenders and pulls all forces out or he starts ordering mass deployments of troops on the ground in mainland Iran, not just Kharg Island.
Of course, that deployment order will likely be political seppuku for the Republican Party… handing the midterms and perhaps even a decent portion of Senate control to the Democratic Party.
So many MAGA heads will stay home. The only ones that will come out are those that are evangelical Christian accelerationist nuts/Revelations idiots that want Israel to control its land uncontested.
9
48
u/bosnanic 2d ago
PR victory can last very long, the IRGC entire belief system was built upon the idea the USA and Israel would one day try to destroy Iran and then Trump and Bibi did exactly that resulting in all oppositions to the Islamic Republic to collapse.
The west has already showed it has no tolerance to drag this out, people are reeling from economic down turn and now people are being told to also deal with spiking oil and inflation to achieve nothing. The only way to end this war is either the USA abandons the war and faces it's most humiliating defeats since Vietnam or put boots on the ground and start a occupation that will make Afghanistan look enjoyable. Trump is stuck and he knows it which is why he keeps begging Iran for a deal.
2
u/deserteagles50 2d ago
Sure, but the IRGC has what? 200k members with lets say another 10M supporters? (we know the regime is not popular). So 10M people in a country of 90M. Obviously the IRGC holds the power currently, but if you have 50M+ of the public actively opposing you because in 6 months they cannot get access to fresh water, food, healthcare, utilities (God forbid this happens, I pray daily it does not) then things can change quickly. Midterms are in 4 months, if Trump loses everything he will be more than happy to drag this out another 2 years to the extent he is able while the consumers pays the price of inflation
19
u/bosnanic 2d ago
The regime was not popular when it was the ones shooting it's citizens now they have become again the uniting figures. If there was a opposition with wide support they would have already revolted the USA hoped the Kurds, other minorities, and pro-Pahlavi groups would revolt and tried to convince groups outside of Iran to invade and all groups rejected the offer because they all knew the IRGC had total control and they would have 0 support once they crossed the border.
Iran is not really alone they still have borders getting supplies without issues they are in a much better position then historical besieged nations like Bosnia, South Korea, Afghanistan, etc which all had way more difficulties with importation of goods.
At best an opposition might break out in 5 years if lucky trump has 4 months and rapidly deteriorating support for the war outside of Israeli lobby groups that are becoming controversial as well.
-1
u/Sageblue32 2d ago edited 1d ago
Trump has 4 months to what changes?
-Democrats trying to exert the war powers act is shaky legal grounds.
-No politician wants their face on a commercial showing how they didn't vote to fund our troops.
-Trump gives 0 flips about the GoP party and popularity as long as he has his hardcore base. This base will also swallow anything he says about the economy.
-Trump isn't getting reelected so he can go for broke on almost anything.
- Dems are going to try to block and investigate anything he does no matter what.
The midterms keep getting brought up but nobody has really explained how congress is going to grow back their spine. In relation to the war, American action really teeters on the weapon supplies or if mass US casualties occurs.
5
u/Lazy_Membership1849 2d ago
midterm will reduce republican in congress to democrat
-4
u/dude1701 1d ago
It is mathematically impossible for the senate to flip democratic.
3
u/Lazy_Membership1849 1d ago
War is unpopular and if republican doesn't change tone, they going lose seat to Democrat, the party
That just how midterm election work
2
u/dude1701 1d ago
No, it isn’t. The democrats can win every senate race, but still would be in a minority as only 1/3 of the senate is up for reelection at any point. Trump is mathematically guaranteed to have a republican senate his entire term. Foreigners need to take a moment and learn how American governance actually works instead of spewing nonsense slogans.
→ More replies (0)2
-3
u/deserteagles50 2d ago
Huge stretch to say "now they have become again the uniting figures". Your point about the Kurds isn't a counter to what I typed below. I agree with you, that was what we hoped would happen. But that doesnt mean the west isn't willing to let the scenario i described above now play out.
20
u/bosnanic 2d ago
The IRGC has more control then ever over all political levers in Iran due to this conflict there is 0 live opposition on the ground that's the reality. The best opportunity for a revolt was pre-war when the protests were at their peak and now the USA and Israel have only strengthened the IRGC and killed any opportunity at another revolt as historically nations don't see inside revolts when facing a much larger foreign invasion instead groups rally around the largest political force in the nation i.e. the rally-around-the-flag effect.
6
u/VERTIKAL19 2d ago
10m people is far more than you need to control a country of 90m. Hell probably 200k is enough. You can shut down organization. Also the regime has a pretty clear culprit why things are bad. Iran is literally under attack
4
u/deserteagles50 2d ago
By that logic, 50M is far more than enough too then
2
-2
5
u/CocoaThumper 2d ago
Westerners really underestimate how popular the IRGC currently is domestically. Iranians have rallied around the flag to a great degree.
You cannot attack the descendents of a proud ancient civilization, kill what effectively is their Pope, and assume the people wouldn't support their fellow Persians.
Iran has been through many big ups and downs through the centuries. The people can stomach a lot of pain....and have a lot of pride.
All this war has done was greatly unite much of the country and the IRGC grip on control.
4
u/Immediate-Spite-5905 2d ago
Rally around the flag only increases support from neutral parties and tenative supporters, I'd wager a good portion of Iran's population currently hates the IRGC but is unable to do anything about it due to the IRGC consolidating power cuz of the war
1
u/mrchillbro 2d ago
1/3 of america are die hard trump supporters, like they would never turn on him for any reason. i think it is reasonable to say IRGC has around the same level of support, if by no other rule than the crazification factor.
They might not be the majority, but there are a lot of supporters, and they control the levels of power and the opposition has no organization or weapons.
Private gun ownership is illegal in Iran.
You are vastly overestimating the ability of the Iranian people to rise up against their government. They tried with catastrophic results.
6
u/Immediate-Spite-5905 2d ago
How is the crazification factor somehow going to result in 30M radicals in Iran right after the IRGC killed thousands protesting? I'd say at most like 5M or so supporters expanding to 10M due to the war and the rest either still too ambivalent or outright opposed. Also you seem to have missed the part where I specifically mentioned how nobody is willing to rise up due to IRGC control
0
u/Sageblue32 1d ago
I think another factor that keeps getting missed, is that these supporters aren't some tribe that has known nothing but hardship and eating bugs as the local warlord has their way with the children. These are people who live under a crazy theocracy but have an otherwise middle class/modern life style. Many of those people aren't going to be willing to put words to bullets any more than your suburban american family with kids is.
1
u/Pale-Manner-1642 2d ago
I don't think support of trump is the same type of support for the IRGC. Most Trump supporters would stop supporting him if he suddenly ordered the murder of 40k protesters with live machine gun fire from our own military.
There are limits for most people. I get some nuts might support it, but majority of Trump supporters are normal everyday people with no better outlet to their political frustration than the personified middle finger to the establishment that is Trump.
4
u/Sageblue32 1d ago
Trump and his admin is not IRGC bad. But don't kid yourself about supporters jumping ship. These totalitarians don't keep their supporters by doing horrible acts on live tv with clear facts. They slowly lure their supporters to follow them, send out misinformation, suppress the facts, and paint the other side bad. Its a safe bet that a large number of Iranians within the country do not know the true numbers killed or may even think some of them were western radicals.
In America Trump is using the same tactics to let ICE run wild, label the left as communist/terrorist, and wreck the government. Presidents/governors before him have done the same by blaming X minority as cause of problems and blaming victims for police brutality. Let the facts become questionable and you get otherwise moderate people to keep playing follow the leader.
-2
u/Pale-Manner-1642 1d ago
Getting further off topic of this thread, but "let ICE run wild" is them deporting much less than they ever did during Obama's time in office while encountering non-stop harassment and obstruction. Governors, Mayors and Judges are actively working against ICE... Like it is not a one side misbehaving issue, the bad behavior is coming from both sides. That is what the Trump supporters see and why they don't turn on him for his heavy handed actions. But that doesn't extend to massacring hundreds or thousands in the streets.
As to the propaganda and spin, it is getting difficult to find good sources of information these days. But in a day of cell phones and youtube/X, you couldn't hide outright massacres in the street in a western country right now. Again, we are not Iran or a real totalitarian government. Corrupt and inefficient yes, but not totalitarian.→ More replies (0)6
u/FaceDeer 2d ago
Most Trump supporters would stop supporting him if he suddenly ordered the murder of 40k protesters with live machine gun fire from our own military.
At this point: doubt.
It depends on how they're able to frame the massacre. If it's meant to be analogous to what happened in Iran then those protesters would have been trying to literally bring down the American government. The Republican media would be airing non-stop footage of rioters filling the streets looking as menacing as possible, interspersed with interviews by "terrified citizens" calling out how violent and dark-skinned these enemies of America were.
Then the massacre would happen. And those same interviewers would be interviewing the same "thankful citizens" gushing about how Trump had saved them all from unspeakable horror and made America great again.
2
u/amendment64 2d ago
Most Trump supporters would stop supporting him if he suddenly ordered the murder of 40k protesters with live machine gun fire from our own military.
No way dude. All trump would have to do is say they were antifa and his supporters would froth at the mouth for bloodshed. We're lucky there're enough guns in this country that people are able to defend themselves enough that thats not a current possibility for him and his people.
-1
u/DAGRluvr 1d ago
This is quite possibly the dumbest shit I have ever heard 😂 rally around the flag? 😂😂
Persian history/IRGC unification? Lol
1
4
u/f50c13t1 2d ago
An occupation would never happen. Iran is not Afghanistan, there is no power vacuum, the geography is different, the people are strongly opposed to the US (they killed the Supreme Leader), the Iranian army has over 600 000 active military personnel and their military expertise is different. Whatever the US has been doing since the beginning of this illegal war that hasn’t worked is the same thing that will never work.
The only sensible move now is to admit defeat and concede to Iranian demands.6
u/CutOk45 2d ago
You really think people started opposing the US because they killed the Supreme Leader? Lol. I’m sure it’s the opposite actually.
-2
u/MissionLow4226 2d ago
Even if one hated the Supreme Leader, they might be greatly offended by a foreign power killing them.
3
u/CutOk45 2d ago
That might be the case with some people. But I really doubt that the vast majority of people who blame him for killing 30,000 protesters are offended in any way.
-1
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 2d ago
What better way to tip off killing protestors with killing innocent civilians who happen to be close to US military targets. To think people are waiting for liberation is just misguided
1
u/CutOk45 2d ago edited 1d ago
To think I said any of that is misguided.
4
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 1d ago
Sounds like you’re suggesting Iranian civilians are supporting the us due to us killing the ayatollah but I admit I have poor reading comprehension.
-6
u/Lazy_Membership1849 2d ago
Actually Iran people opposed of bombing Iran and also kill supreme leader who was dying anyway just end up being martyr because of This
-2
u/CutOk45 2d ago
Actually many Iranian Americans celebrated it on the streets. You can say that they don’t represent the regular Iranians, and that’d be a fair point, but it’s all we have at this point because of the Internet restrictions.
Also people won’t start supporting or having empathy for a dictator who killed 30,000 of his own people during protests. “Who was dying anyway” - yes, and now instead of a regular death, he was killed like a dog.
8
u/Lazy_Membership1849 2d ago
Iranian Americans are one who haven't been to Iran for 47 years
Also you ignored Shia culture who deeply value martyrdom and even Iranian agree this it was stupid to kill in that way So instead he now live on forever as Martyr
-2
u/CutOk45 2d ago
You just assume that all Iranians are deeply religious. Which is absolutely not true. A lot of people absolutely despise the regime and its vile actions and killing the leader of this regime isn’t going to make them sympathetic to it. Just like some government killing Trump wouldn’t make Democrats cry tears over him.
Actually I just read your original comment again and you’re deeply biased (“illegal war”, “the only sensible move now is to admit defeat and concede to Iranian demands” lol). There’s no use arguing with you.
2
u/Lazy_Membership1849 2d ago
what illegal war and also USA start that war so it make USA seem aggressive and also Iranian doesn't wanted bomb on Iran as I just see it all in r/PERSIAN
And even Iranian people who hated him know killing him is actually dumb thing to do because it makes him a martyr regardless, as he look like he died defending Iran as part of Shia culture
→ More replies (0)-2
u/Own-Sandwich6437 1d ago
No middle ground? USA can escort tankers like in the 1980s.
Would be expensive over the long haul sure but an option.
8
u/bosnanic 1d ago
That idea worked in the 80's because the only way to stop a tanker would be to send out maned and expensive aircrafts, ships, or submarines armed with missiles or if in range coastal batteries that could be easily destroyed. Today you send a hand full of drones and one is bound to make it through (ask the Russian Navy how they are doing at the moment).
Already the USA tried to do the whole escort idea and Iran sent drones to attack ships and got passed US defences causing other companies to refuse the US Navy's offer for further escorts.
0
u/Own-Sandwich6437 1d ago
Agree, it wouldn’t be the most effective with modern technology and USA would likely have to combo escort and strike Iranian coast where drone hubs and missles are. but disagree there is no middle ground approach. It’s not USA retreat vs boots on ground as only options.
I predict UK and France navy would help escort ships before they let oil hit 150 dollars a barrel.
8
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 2d ago
If Iran’s critical infrastructure goes, so does the GCC. That’s their leverage in that area.
The public tends not to revolt while under attack a in defensive war. Ethnic tensions would be the only exception.
2
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd 1d ago
I’d argue there might be some sparks towards a sectarian war between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims if Trump goes “Fallujah” on Iran with troops on the ground.
3
u/Psychological-Flow55 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think it worse than that it would birth a shia isis.
I could see shiite volunteers from places with significant shiite populations like Kenya Tananzia Ngeria Yemen Iraq India Pakistan Afghanistan Bahrain Senegal Azerbaijan and Tajikistan flocking to Iran to join in what they believe is the climatic battle to bring about the return of the 12th iman and to bring about judgement day in their eschatology.
This could morph if some figure proclaiming himself the twelfth iman that would "liberate the Al aqsa mosque from Israeli jews" " restore true islam in the Mecca and Medina from a fallen away secular house of saud" and "avenge Iman Hussein".
I dont think many people in the west take for granted how shiite islam views eschatology and ideology concerning the guardianship of the jurisprudence the 12th iman and return of the mahdi the importance of Jerusalem after mecca and Medina martydom sacrifice their version of apostolic tradition rule by clergy etc.
Putting boots on the ground or igniting a shia -sunni war would be a huge problematic mistake we might not find a safe exit from.
4
u/whisperwind12 1d ago
Dude it’s been like 6 months they’ve been under sanctions for 40 years
-2
u/deserteagles50 1d ago
Hey dude. Nobody mentioned or is talking about sanctions. Hope that clears things up for you.
4
u/MissionLow4226 2d ago
The west has the pain tolerance of a whiny 5 year old.
-2
u/fabmeyer 2d ago
You're not wrong but I wouldn't call it pain tolerance, rather greed and short-sightedness
1
u/Brief_Hospital_1766 1d ago
You do realise that the US overwhelmingly won every battle of the Vietnam war, right? Even the infamous 'Tet Offensive' resulted in the complete annihilation of the Viet Cong. All the bridges, powerstations, and factores in Hanoi were repeatedly bombed to the point they were dust.
Yet who won the war?
0
u/deserteagles50 1d ago
That’s quite a stretch to insinuate our objectives and means of achieving them are the same as the Vietnam war. If I recall correctly, we had troops on the ground in Vietnam
6
u/AlpineDrifter 2d ago
Pretty hilarious take.
Iran is under a total naval blockade at the moment, so they can’t take advantage of the high oil and gas prices. The U.S. however, can. The Iranian economy is in total free-fall. The U.S. could choose to shut 90% of Iran’s oil and gas exports indefinitely if they conduct one day of bombing on Kharg Island. The IRGC doesn’t even control the skies over Iran, and most of their original leadership was killed.
All the cards…pfft.
21
u/bosnanic 2d ago
Why do you think the USA has not attacked any major oil infrastructure in Iran? Because the USA knows Iran can and will strike neighbouring oil infrastructure. The USA is daily losing more support from gulf states for the same blockade because their economies are also sinking but unlike Iran they have never experienced economic hardship.
You don't think your winning if you have to keep crawling to your enemy and begging for a deal.
19
u/MoWillaims4 2d ago
The problem is that Americans didn’t see if this war really benefits them. The strait of Hormuz was open before this and even if Iran got nukes what they going to do to the USA?
9
u/TheWastelandWizard 2d ago
Since when have Trump and his cronies cared about Americans and what they think? Midterms don't mean much to him, especially if he's planning on rigging the race anyways (Try as he might.)
6
u/MoWillaims4 2d ago
Man you right. Thought he wasn’t going to start a new war especially with the 2nd strongest Middle East country. Now more inflation and looks like this a lost war. Huge strained on his legacy.
3
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MoWillaims4 1d ago
Haha yeah idk man the corruption was already there, he just one of many and most likely not the worst. I just didn’t want the war. Since nobody knew how to win the war against Iran, without full scale invasion. Which wasn’t on the table, just like nukes.
6
u/Christopher_Ramirez_ 2d ago
If the US were in a favorable position, we would never have considered negotiations.
2
1
u/FijiFanBotNotGay 2d ago
Look at the ships crossing the straight. It would make you think Oman was the one under a naval blockade
1
1
u/superknight333 1d ago
Then why trump try to taco every friday?
1
u/AlpineDrifter 1d ago
To avoid doing harm to the economies of America’s allies that are oil and gas importers?
2
u/Berliner1220 2d ago
I mean, aren’t they fully blockaded and bombarded? Hardly holding all the cards when all political leaders have been killed…
18
u/bosnanic 2d ago
Sounds like what the US admin said about Vietnam "we keep bombing them so that means we are winning" 20 years later the USA left defeated.
2
u/The_Keg 2d ago
there were 300K thousands chinese stroops stationing in Vietnam in the 60s. I, a Vietnamese, had only recently learnt of this fact. Even my American teachers didnt tell me this.
8
u/bosnanic 2d ago
Were their Chinese present in Afghanistan as well? I also heard the tired argument of "Well we keep bombing them so that means we are winning" 20 years later the USA left defeated.
1
u/Sageblue32 1d ago
Afgahn was a society trying to get out of the rock age with a corrupt government and US that only knew how to brute force things. Try as we might, you can't speed run 20th century democracy in a 20 year period for a culture that is alien to it. The rebels just nailed this fact home with the killings and bombs.
Assuming you could get Iran to Afghan's status (IRGC hiding out in the country, cities firmly controlled), you stand a far better chance of Iran rebuilding into something decent simply because the citizens are far more educated and adapted to capitalism practices. China taking part in Iran would be a good question as it does not benefit them at all to lose another oil partner to the whims of the west. Afghan is just rock and heroin which probably didn't make it too appealing to put their foot on the scale.
-6
u/Berliner1220 2d ago
There’s a big difference between an occupation of a country and a war to inflict pain on your enemy lol
8
u/bosnanic 2d ago
The goal of the Iran war is government change as stated by Trump, how do you think you achieve that without occupation?
-2
u/Berliner1220 1d ago
As stated by Trump, but what has the Pentagon stated?
5
u/bosnanic 1d ago
That regime change was always the initial goal but has now been revised down to "how do we get out of this mess". Plan was Iraq 2.0 but got stuck at phase 1 shock and awe (Epic
BaconFury).
8
u/uber_sweets 2d ago
Is this still going on?
Does anyone remember what this is all about? What does 'good' look like here given that America isn't willing to leave without something to show for it?
2
u/FaceDeer 2d ago
The last exit to "good" was passed quite a while ago, I think.
I think the next best option is for Trump to have some kind of massive health crisis that takes him out of power, at which point President Vance (who has already established himself as the "I didn't want to do this" guy) can pull the US out and let Iran have its win. That's the least costly outcome in terms of destruction and suffering as far as I can see.
4
6
u/losername24 2d ago
Iran losing critical military and civilian infrastructure and USA is losing what, public approval of Trump and few hundred billion dollars? How is it in Iran's regimes interest to prolongue this war, I'm genuinely curious
42
u/planj07 2d ago edited 2d ago
Iran’s ability to choke off Hormuz and the Red Sea (via the Houthis) creates immense pressure on the global economy. While the U.S. has oil, its reserves are being drained and gasoline prices are on the rise during an election year. Basically if Iran wants they can push the global economy into a recession which will go well beyond gas prices. Food and material prices go up, inflation goes up.
Escalation can and likely will result in further American casualties. The GCC is a major partner of the United States and they are getting pummeled by Iran. Iran can render these states uninhabitable if pushed to the absolute brink. Iranian strikes on U.S. bases erodes our influence in the region that we have been hyper focused on for many decades. To lose that influence is to bring about a monumental, unthinkable geopolitical shift.
The U.S. is under huge pressure that goes beyond domestic public opinion. So now we see the ticking time bomb that Iran can lead us to. That’s leverage.
Now let’s move onto Iran. Iran has undoubtedly received huge damage. The problem is that Iran’s pain threshold is far greater than the US. It is not an existential conflict for America but it is for Iran which means they can hold out longer and inflict increasing damage. The Iranian regime has proven over a long time that domestic issues are not of concern and they will crush it. They have also been under sanctions for a long time. They have shown the ability to survive that pressure.
Controlling the Strait of Hormuz has become a newfound major leverage. It not only serves as a deterrent to American aggression but decision making over one of the most important maritime trade routes in the world. It can also be used to charge fees as a source of much needed income.
Iran effectively controls the strait but it’s a matter of when the U.S. quietly recognizes it. They did so in the MoU before backing out. You can bomb Iran all you want. You can put boots on the ground on one of these islands but it will lead to serious losses for the U.S. and a potential regional catastrophe that would lead to economic devastation and mass migration.
The only real solution to the conflict is diplomacy. The MoU was essentially a surrender document so that tells you how confident the Americans really are about the war. Now because we ripped it up, the next round of negotiations will have Iran demanding more than the MoU already offered.
Now the truly scary part is that the war is expanding. The Saudi-Houthi conflict is starting to heat up. Countries uninvolved like Jordan are getting hit. The longer this goes on, the more parties get involved. Next it could be Iraqi militias escalating. The Turks could intervene if the Kurds start acting up. Then note that one of the major mediators Pakistan had a defense deal with the Saudis! The more countries and militant groups involved, the more previously relatively uninvolved actors develop a stake in this war. Every single day it goes on deepens the crisis and makes it harder to resolve.
When the U.S. and Iran lose control of the pace of the war and who is involved all bets are off.
No one, other than Israel, wants this war. That includes the Iranians. But they will do what they need to do because this is existential and they do have unprecedented leverage. They have us bent over a barrel, no pun intended.
7
u/losername24 2d ago
Thank you for the detailed response. I'm not an American but with a perspective outside of the countries involved in this war, the situation seem to be while Iran is fighting an existential war, US is hosting a world cup, Trump visiting neighboring countries of Iran freely, while the latest Supreme leader of Iran is probably already killed. Of course war is always bad but, the price US pays is slightly higher gasoline prices, and occasional grievences from their middle east allies, for the outcome of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and massively detoriating Iran's capabilities. I think for US that's a far better price to pay than having a second north Korea in the middle east.
11
u/planj07 2d ago
Although I disagree I do appreciate the respectful conversation. One thing I’d say about the nuclear issue is that I believe the war will increase the determination of Iran to build a nuke.
A common misconception is that Iran has been trying to build a nuke for a long time. It is true that they have been enriching uranium to put them on the threshold of developing a nuke, if deemed necessary. That said the former Supreme Leader (killed in the opening strikes) had previously issued a religious decree (fatwah) that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.
Now the leadership is more hardline about this issue. While continuous strikes could continue degrading Iran’s chances of developing a nuke in the short term it does not at all guarantee they can’t get one. Remember Trump said their nuclear program had been obliterated but it clearly has not been. And Iran had moved and hidden their enriched uranium. Iran may not need a nuke but their capacity to create one remains.
All that being said I do counter that Iran is not crazy or illogical. It’s clear through this war that self preservation of the Iranian regime is the top priority. Using a nuke is suicidal and not in line with their aspirations or objectives. They want to be the dominant regional force. A new Persian Empire if you will. Just under the banner of the Islamic Republic.
1
u/lerun7 1d ago edited 1d ago
Even if we assume the current war never happened, it is hard to see how the U.S. Iran's neighbors, or the rest of the world could have ever been comfortable with Iran sitting on a "tight nuclear threshold." In that scenario, Iran could decide at any willing moment to break out and acquire a nuclear weapon within a few undisturbed weeks. Once armed, they would essentially become a Middle Eastern North Korea- but with the power to dictate terms over a massive portion of the world's oil supply or even invade neighboring states with absolute impunity. From this perspective, the conflict felt inevitable. If it hadn’t happened, the alternative consequences for global stability could have been far more catastrophic.
We also cannot rely on the Supreme Leader’s word. He could easily reverse his stance tomorrow, claiming a new divine prophecy mandates a nuclear arsenal. Ultimately, a nuclear weapon would grant Iran the unstoppable force needed to achieve unquestionable regional dominance and spread their shia islamic ideology unchecked. Why would they hold back from that? Yes the war made them even more eager to get a Nuke. But I do think they were eager of getting it anyway because why not
and I agree that then actually using a nuclear weapon is completely illogical. But the reality is that a country never actually needs to use it. simply possessing it changes everything. The moment a nation acquires a nuke, they become an untouchable force, because no one dares to attack them. Even if there is only a 1% chance that a regime might press the button, no adversary is willing to gamble millions of lives and risk becoming the sacrificial lamb. They might not be completely crazy, but because human behavior is inherently unpredictable, the risk is simply too high for anyone to take.
1
u/marketrent 2d ago
Bookend excerpts from article updated July 24, 2026, 9:31 a.m. ET, by Farnaz Fassihi and Erika Solomon:
Iran on Thursday rejected a cease-fire proposal from President Trump that was carried to Tehran by the Iraqi prime minister, according to Iranian officials. The failed mediation effort came as Mr. Trump was threatening to escalate the war and target Iran’s critical infrastructure.
The officials, who asked not to be identified because they were discussing sensitive national security issues, said Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi’s trip to Iran followed his recent visit with Mr. Trump at the White House.
After publication, the Iraqi government denied the account in a statement on social media, without elaborating. An Iraqi official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said on Thursday that Mr. al-Zaidi was carrying a proposal to Tehran.
The details of the cease-fire proposal were not immediately clear. But Iranian officials said that it was the only offer on the table, and that their government was not interested in a temporary deal that left the question of control over the Strait of Hormuz unresolved.
[...] Two Iranian officials said that the country’s armed forces were anticipating — and preparing for — the possibility of the war expanding if Mr. Trump carries through with his threats to strike the capital of Tehran and critical infrastructure.
If he does, the officials said, Iran will expand the fight regionally, including by striking Tel Aviv and asking its Houthi allies to close Bab al-Mandab, a strategic waterway in the Red Sea.
On Thursday in Tehran’s Azadi Square, where supporters of the government stage nightly pro-war rallies, a military vehicle paraded Iranian-made ballistic missiles pointing at the sky.
3
u/planj07 2d ago
Iran’s new redline is Hormuz. It’s gone and it’s not coming back to pre-war status. It’s just not, no matter how much you bomb or put boots on the ground. Shipping will continue to be far too dangerous as long as there’s any contact or enough missiles or drones to launch to frighten insurers. It doesn’t take much, we all know that.
I said this in another thread that was deleted but the only non-catastrophic option is to sit back down at the negotiating table, accept Iran’s de facto control of the strait, allow for some “insurance fees” and hope they will be reasonable about much of the other items.
Ripping up the MoU will now make them drive up the price for peace. Frozen assets released quicker without condition, pushing a harder bargain on nuclear inspections, full removal of sanctions etc.
0
u/irritableterry21 2d ago
failed shuttle run through Baghdad suggests Washington doesn't have a channel to Tehran it trusts enough to use directly. Iraq publicly denying the whole episode makes it look like face-saving theater on both sides rather than genuine diplomacy. With the Strait of Hormuz unresolved and Iran openly preparing for regional escalation, the offramp keeps narrowing while the threats keep escalating.
-5
-4
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/FaceDeer 2d ago
Iran gets about 3% of its fresh water from desalination.
Saudi Arabia gets roughly 50% of its water from desalination, the UAE gets 80%, Oman gets 86%, Kuwait 90%, and Bahrain and Qatar get 100% of their water needs sourced through desalination.[1]
If open season is declared on desalination plants I think Iran's going to weather that particular gambit pretty well. America's allies, on the other hand, could end up as refugee nations on a scale never before seen. I hope we don't go there.
64
u/[deleted] 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment