I think in the original acceptance of ceasefire by Iran it stated it would open the strait for two weeks if attacks against it, and its allies stopped - and shortly thereafter Israel dropped a hundred bombs on what it said were Hezbollah targets in the Beirut area - thereby driving a coach and horses through the agreement.
Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz. It doesnt take too many missiles and drones to blow up tankers.
It only takes one to hit a ship, or get close enough to doing so that it's obvious ships can be hit. At that point no one will insure a ship going through the strait, and nothing will move. A credible threat against shipping is all that's needed to close the strait to all shipping, except any that Iran lets through.
I read somewhere that many ships are staying out of the Strait unless and until they receive the go-ahead from their insurers, which chimes in with what @Alan Cresswell has just said.
Which is why the out and out attack on Iran was strategically stupid. Which I’m sure the US military leadership knew. And neither Trump nor Hegseth knew or cared. Which didn’t stop them overriding best advice.
Not the 100% total victory claimed by Trump and Hegseth, but a monumental cock-up which will affect the world for years to come, even if it were to stop now.
Which is why the out and out attack on Iran was strategically stupid. Which I’m sure the US military leadership knew. And neither Trump nor Hegseth knew or cared. Which didn’t stop them overriding best advice.
You may be interested in this piece from the NY Times (free link) which reports on the process by which the decision to go to war was reached. TL;DR: Netanyahu sold Trump on the idea, and no one spoke up forcefully enough against it. What passes for military leadership here didn't actually give "best advice":
General Caine’s role in the lead-up to the war captured a classic tension between military counsel and presidential decision-making. So persistent was the chairman in not taking a stand — repeating that it was not his role to tell the president what to do, but rather to present options along with potential risks and possible second- and third-order consequences — that he could appear to some of those listening to be arguing all sides of an issue simultaneously.
It is noted in the comments on the Times site and elsewhere that it is extremely likely that VP JD Vance and/or people close to him were the sources for this piece, as it works hard to distance him from this unmitigated disaster:
Nobody in Mr. Trump’s inner circle was more worried about the prospect of war with Iran, or did more to try to stop it, than the vice president.
A second thought re General Caine. It wouldn’t be surprising, as the article suggests, that Caine’s approach was influenced by what happened to General Milley. And his predecessor, from the first Trump administration, “Mad dog”Mattis. Attempts to directly dissuade Trump tend to get you sacked.
Perhaps Caine is following a very moderate version of President Johnson’s famous observation. “It’s better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in”. Provided that the pissing out is not too powerful. Trump sees disloyalty early.
I've not seen anything on UK news (so far) regarding intervention by China. Do you have a reliable link?
Meanwhile, the Spanish Prime Minister is characteristically blunt:
Ceasefires are always good news - especially if they lead to a just and lasting peace. But this momentary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, the destruction, and the lives lost.
The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket.
What’s needed now are diplomacy, international legality, and PEACE.
(From the Guardian)
There is a link here from The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (our version of the BBC). Also an article in the New York Times.
From the ABC
In short:
US President Donald Trump says he believes China was responsible for bringing Iran to the ceasefire negotiating table.
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi says he has held 26 phone calls with his counterparts in Iran, Israel, Russia and Gulf countries.
I've not seen anything on UK news (so far) regarding intervention by China. Do you have a reliable link?
Meanwhile, the Spanish Prime Minister is characteristically blunt:
Ceasefires are always good news - especially if they lead to a just and lasting peace. But this momentary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, the destruction, and the lives lost.
The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world on fire just because they show up with a bucket.
What’s needed now are diplomacy, international legality, and PEACE.
(From the Guardian)
There is a link here from The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (our version of the BBC). Also an article in the New York Times.
From the ABC
In short:
US President Donald Trump says he believes China was responsible for bringing Iran to the ceasefire negotiating table.
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi says he has held 26 phone calls with his counterparts in Iran, Israel, Russia and Gulf countries.
The Strait of Hormuz does appear to be the sticking point - Iran seems to still have the ability to keep it closed (or too dangerous to use), but this has surely been self-evident all along to everyone except Trump.
Maybe I shouldn't say this, given how odious and repressive a regime Iranians have suffered for many years, but I can't help sort of admiring their tenacity and sheer grit in standing up to the US and Israel...at one and the same time.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
@Doublethink Yes of course it's an asymmetric conflict.
It's called terrorism.
Negotiations with Iran have been doing on for decades.
There's a lovely viral meme at the moment with the past 7 presidents of the US saying Iran is a danger, we should do something about it, then Trump saying "okay".
This is a longstanding issue. Trump is the only one that had the guts to try do something about it.
@Barnabas62 Their best strategic card is in keeping will longstanding terrorism in proxy groups in the Middle East.
Holding the Strait of Hormuz is terrorism because it affects people beyond the attackers. Simple as that.
And the attack wasn't sudden. It's been brewing for decades. They were ready.
And you can go into numbers of deaths but you'd have to look back far into history.
As for national identity? No. It's the regime.
My neighbour is a diaspora Iranian post Revolution and they have the old monarchic flag up with an Australian flag outside their house.
There's a lovely viral meme at the moment with the past 7 presidents of the US saying Iran is a danger, we should do something about it, then Trump saying "okay".
This is a longstanding issue. Trump is the only one that had the guts to try do something about it.
Doing something stupid and dangerous isn't "guts" it's just stupidity, as evidenced by Trump desperately trying to reverse out of the mess he's made.
Decades of negotiations avoided Iran developing nuclear weapons and avoided the death and destruction triggered by Trump's stupidity. Blockading trade routes isn't "terrorism", it's part and parcel of warfare. Threatening genocide, on the other hand, is a war crime.
I note with regret the Trumpathy. He certainly doesn’t get any sympathy from me. This action doesn’t demonstrate guts. It demonstrates strategic stupidity.
The Strait of Hormuz does appear to be the sticking point - Iran seems to still have the ability to keep it closed (or too dangerous to use), but this has surely been self-evident all along to everyone except Trump.
Maybe I shouldn't say this, given how odious and repressive a regime Iranians have suffered for many years, but I can't help sort of admiring their tenacity and sheer grit in standing up to the US and Israel...at one and the same time.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
It's underhanded and unfair.
True to form.
"This animal is naughty. If you attack it it bites."
It was true to form. That's why every serious commentator on military strategy knew Iran would do it if the survival of the regime. You expected the Iranian regime to say to itself, "well, if we don't do this we'll be overthrown and probably killed, but our consciences won't let us commit a war crime"? You expected that? Trump expected that?
(Especially after Trump and Hegseth loudly proclaimed that they had no problems with committing war crimes and killing innocents themselves? The difference isn't morals; it's that Trump was threatening Iranian civilians which the Iranian regime doesn't care about, while Iran was threatening the world economy which Trump's backers do care about. Both parties were amoral, but one had basically functional intelligence and the other was utterly stupid.)
One might ask why the Iranians didn't seize the Strait before now. Presumably they were afraid of the possible retaliation. Thing is now Trump's got the retaliation in preemptively Iran now has de facto control of the Strait. It's going to be harder to force them to give that up than it was to discourage them from seizing it.
The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
Looks like Israel will continue to attack sites in the Lebanon until the USA tells them specifically to stop. Not sure what the limit is to Iranian patience on that issue. The next few hours look like they may be critical for the US/Iran ceasefire.
Some pundits are saying Trump is likely to ask Netanyahu to stop the bombing in Southern Lebanon in order to protect the apparent peace deal.
He won't like that but the argument runs that he has to stick close to Trump if he wants re-election. Trump's more popular in Israel than Netanyahu an American pundit suggested in an interview on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime.
On the Straits of Hormuz, Iran has blocked that in the past without there being a pre-emptive strike by Israel and the US. How much more likely was that going to be now that's there been such a strike?
Ok, so Israel wouldn't hit Iran in the first place if it wasn't supporting Hezbollah and wasn't a perceived existential threat.
But to cry foul when they do so when under attack is a piece of twisted logic.
We all know what Netanyahu wants
What does Trump want?
He was complaining the other day that he wants the oil but the American people won't allow him to because they don't like the war.
Blaming his own people for not letting him get what he wants.
Looks like Israel will continue to attack sites in the Lebanon until the USA tells them specifically to stop. Not sure what the limit is to Iranian patience on that issue. The next few hours look like they may be critical for the US/Iran ceasefire.
Or all Trump needed at the time was a face saving way out the escalation path he'd initiated, and he either knew and didn't care or was counting on the Israelis to test the agreement later.
On the Straits of Hormuz, Iran has blocked that in the past without there being a pre-emptive strike by Israel and the US.
When was that? If you are thinking of the so-called Tanker War, that was preceded by an Iraqi invasion of Iran which was supported by the US and its allies (up to and including supporting the chemical weapons program of Saddam Hussein).
I don't know. I think it is just getting in as many hits as possible while the going is good. My interpretation is that many (not all) in Israel no longer believe any sort of peace is ultimately possible, and are instead envisaging maintaining the state as a perpetually defended encampment with regular punitive expeditions. "Peace deals" are just noises off.
I don't know. I think it is just getting in as many hits as possible while the going is good. My interpretation is that many (not all) in Israel no longer believe any sort of peace is ultimately possible, and are instead envisaging maintaining the state as a perpetually defended encampment with regular punitive expeditions. "Peace deals" are just noises off.
I think some are interested in making a desert and calling it peace.
I don't know. I think it is just getting in as many hits as possible while the going is good. My interpretation is that many (not all) in Israel no longer believe any sort of peace is ultimately possible, and are instead envisaging maintaining the state as a perpetually defended encampment with regular punitive expeditions. "Peace deals" are just noises off.
A second thought re General Caine. It wouldn’t be surprising, as the article suggests, that Caine’s approach was influenced by what happened to General Milley. And his predecessor, from the first Trump administration, “Mad dog”Mattis. Attempts to directly dissuade Trump tend to get you sacked.
Perhaps Caine is following a very moderate version of President Johnson’s famous observation. “It’s better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in”. Provided that the pissing out is not too powerful. Trump sees disloyalty early.
Exactly. Trump and Co had four years out of power to figure out how they had been stymied in the first administration and aren't letting that happen now. Loyalty to Trump is the litmus test this time.
The Strait of Hormuz does appear to be the sticking point - Iran seems to still have the ability to keep it closed (or too dangerous to use), but this has surely been self-evident all along to everyone except Trump.
Maybe I shouldn't say this, given how odious and repressive a regime Iranians have suffered for many years, but I can't help sort of admiring their tenacity and sheer grit in standing up to the US and Israel...at one and the same time.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
It's underhanded and unfair.
True to form.
"This animal is naughty. If you attack it it bites."
It was true to form. That's why every serious commentator on military strategy knew Iran would do it if the survival of the regime. You expected the Iranian regime to say to itself, "well, if we don't do this we'll be overthrown and probably killed, but our consciences won't let us commit a war crime"? You expected that? Trump expected that?
I have a hard time even taking on board that Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz is a war crime -- what else were they supposed to do? As you say, everyone who ever war-gamed a US invasion of Iran knew it would be a disaster. If it's a war crime, it's an American war crime, given that we knew they'd throttle the strait if we invaded. And we'll suffer the least pain, no matter how much people here complain about gas prices.
Presumably, Israel is sabotaging the peace deal, with its attacks on Lebanon?
Peace deals are actual deals where all parties know what they've agreed to. The only place the US ever had this peace deal with Iran was in Trump's fevered imagination.
There's a lovely viral meme at the moment with the past 7 presidents of the US saying Iran is a danger, we should do something about it, then Trump saying "okay".
This is a longstanding issue. Trump is the only one that had the guts to try do something about it.
You're forgetting that under Obama there was a deal agreed, that meant that Iran stopped work on nuclear weapons with international inspections confirming that, in return for a slight easing of economic sanctions. If Trump hadn't reneged on that deal then the Middle East could well be a much better place for all of us. Doing something doesn't necessarily only cover bombing other countries back to the stone age.
This article in the Guardian suggests that China has been happy to have its role in brokering a ceasefire talked up. Basically, given that the terms under discussion are those that Iran proposed, China would have been persuading Iran to do what Iran would have done anyway.
From the article:
Yet some analysts are sceptical about how influential China could actually have been in the late-night discussions.
The deal, as initially advertised by Tehran, is so advantageous to Iran that encouraging the regime to agree to it would have been like “pushing an open door”, according to one analyst.
I suspect all parties want to talk up China's role. Iran wants to look like it's got less of what it wanted so it can threaten to back out; Trump wants it to look like Iran was dragged to the negotiating table so he can pretend he's acting tough and not negotiating on Iran's terms; China wants to look statesmanlike and reasonable to build influence.
I have a hard time even taking on board that Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz is a war crime -- what else were they supposed to do? As you say, everyone who ever war-gamed a US invasion of Iran knew it would be a disaster. If it's a war crime, it's an American war crime, given that we knew they'd throttle the strait if we invaded.
Mining neutral waters and destroying shipping from neutral countries is a war crime.
Whether a nation may commit what would otherwise be war crimes if it is the only way to avoid total defeat at the hands of a more powerful aggressor is I believe a disputed question in just war theory. I think the judgement that it can is required to make a nuclear deterrent permissible.
Dafyd is right. But on the basis of actions so far, US or Israel playing the war crimes card (which I don’t think they would do) is a goose and gander game. An affected nation not directly involved in the conflict might play the card.
War crime or not, controlling the Strait is an effective strategy. And of course Iran can play the national survival card. They are playing it under unprecedented duress.
I’m not sure how it would go in the event that it got before the international court.
I mean, if the price of getting Netanyahu and Trump prosecuted for war crimes is also prosecuting the Ayatollah, the leaders of the IRGC and whoever else on the Iranian side I'm not seeing a downside.
I suspect the defence Iran would use is to challenge claims of neutrality, given that it promised free passage to countries that weren't allies of the US or Israel (and given the ships are primarily carrying oil would that not be considered war material?). Was it even confirmed that Iran had mined the strait?
Re mining in international waters there’s no doubt Iran had and probably still has the capability. Whether they’ve actually done it or not is another matter.
Like the use of drones or missiles on trapped tankers, the threat is probably more powerful than the execution.
If your enemy doesn't have any minesweepers, then claiming you have mined the strait is almost as effective as actually mining it, and a lot cheaper. Who's going to send the first tanker through to check?
The Strait of Hormuz does appear to be the sticking point - Iran seems to still have the ability to keep it closed (or too dangerous to use), but this has surely been self-evident all along to everyone except Trump.
Maybe I shouldn't say this, given how odious and repressive a regime Iranians have suffered for many years, but I can't help sort of admiring their tenacity and sheer grit in standing up to the US and Israel...at one and the same time.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
It's underhanded and unfair.
True to form.
"This animal is naughty. If you attack it it bites."
It was true to form. That's why every serious commentator on military strategy knew Iran would do it if the survival of the regime. You expected the Iranian regime to say to itself, "well, if we don't do this we'll be overthrown and probably killed, but our consciences won't let us commit a war crime"? You expected that? Trump expected that?
(Especially after Trump and Hegseth loudly proclaimed that they had no problems with committing war crimes and killing innocents themselves? The difference isn't morals; it's that Trump was threatening Iranian civilians which the Iranian regime doesn't care about, while Iran was threatening the world economy which Trump's backers do care about. Both parties were amoral, but one had basically functional intelligence and the other was utterly stupid.)
One might ask why the Iranians didn't seize the Strait before now. Presumably they were afraid of the possible retaliation. Thing is now Trump's got the retaliation in preemptively Iran now has de facto control of the Strait. It's going to be harder to force them to give that up than it was to discourage them from seizing it.
The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
So nothing should be done about the Iran nuclear situation and missiles and drones because everyone is afraid of a hostage situation?
Terrorism indeed.
I imagine Trump went ahead cos he was less afraid of bullies.
You have to stand up to bullies.
In the meantime the anaemic response from those that it actually affects is staggering.
The Strait of Hormuz does appear to be the sticking point - Iran seems to still have the ability to keep it closed (or too dangerous to use), but this has surely been self-evident all along to everyone except Trump.
Maybe I shouldn't say this, given how odious and repressive a regime Iranians have suffered for many years, but I can't help sort of admiring their tenacity and sheer grit in standing up to the US and Israel...at one and the same time.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
It's underhanded and unfair.
True to form.
"This animal is naughty. If you attack it it bites."
It was true to form. That's why every serious commentator on military strategy knew Iran would do it if the survival of the regime. You expected the Iranian regime to say to itself, "well, if we don't do this we'll be overthrown and probably killed, but our consciences won't let us commit a war crime"? You expected that? Trump expected that?
(Especially after Trump and Hegseth loudly proclaimed that they had no problems with committing war crimes and killing innocents themselves? The difference isn't morals; it's that Trump was threatening Iranian civilians which the Iranian regime doesn't care about, while Iran was threatening the world economy which Trump's backers do care about. Both parties were amoral, but one had basically functional intelligence and the other was utterly stupid.)
One might ask why the Iranians didn't seize the Strait before now. Presumably they were afraid of the possible retaliation. Thing is now Trump's got the retaliation in preemptively Iran now has de facto control of the Strait. It's going to be harder to force them to give that up than it was to discourage them from seizing it.
The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
So nothing should be done about the Iran nuclear situation
There was a perfectly good agreement in place from 2015 which Trump chose to rip up
The Strait of Hormuz does appear to be the sticking point - Iran seems to still have the ability to keep it closed (or too dangerous to use), but this has surely been self-evident all along to everyone except Trump.
Maybe I shouldn't say this, given how odious and repressive a regime Iranians have suffered for many years, but I can't help sort of admiring their tenacity and sheer grit in standing up to the US and Israel...at one and the same time.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
It's underhanded and unfair.
True to form.
"This animal is naughty. If you attack it it bites."
It was true to form. That's why every serious commentator on military strategy knew Iran would do it if the survival of the regime. You expected the Iranian regime to say to itself, "well, if we don't do this we'll be overthrown and probably killed, but our consciences won't let us commit a war crime"? You expected that? Trump expected that?
(Especially after Trump and Hegseth loudly proclaimed that they had no problems with committing war crimes and killing innocents themselves? The difference isn't morals; it's that Trump was threatening Iranian civilians which the Iranian regime doesn't care about, while Iran was threatening the world economy which Trump's backers do care about. Both parties were amoral, but one had basically functional intelligence and the other was utterly stupid.)
One might ask why the Iranians didn't seize the Strait before now. Presumably they were afraid of the possible retaliation. Thing is now Trump's got the retaliation in preemptively Iran now has de facto control of the Strait. It's going to be harder to force them to give that up than it was to discourage them from seizing it.
The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
So nothing should be done about the Iran nuclear situation and missiles and drones because everyone is afraid of a hostage situation?
Terrorism indeed.
I imagine Trump went ahead cos he was less afraid of bullies.
You have to stand up to bullies.
In the meantime the anaemic response from those that it actually affects is staggering.
It's one thing to stand up to a bully when you are the only person who will be hurt if the bully hits back. Then your only responsibility is to judge whether you mind being hurt yourself.
When you confront a bully who has power to hurt a great many other people and may do so in retaliation, you have a responsibility to weigh up whether your actions will make things better or worse for the other people, and whether there's another way to achieve making things better for the other people.
I read your post as saying that standing up to bullies is inherently a good thing. But standing up to the bully won't automatically stop them being a bully in future. I would say that standing up to a bully when your actions will make things worse for other people and the bully won't stop what they're doing, isn't a good thing.
[I am saying this as a philosophical/ethical point in general not commenting on the specific countries or the current world situation except as it relates to the general point.]
The Strait of Hormuz does appear to be the sticking point - Iran seems to still have the ability to keep it closed (or too dangerous to use), but this has surely been self-evident all along to everyone except Trump.
Maybe I shouldn't say this, given how odious and repressive a regime Iranians have suffered for many years, but I can't help sort of admiring their tenacity and sheer grit in standing up to the US and Israel...at one and the same time.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
It's underhanded and unfair.
True to form.
"This animal is naughty. If you attack it it bites."
It was true to form. That's why every serious commentator on military strategy knew Iran would do it if the survival of the regime. You expected the Iranian regime to say to itself, "well, if we don't do this we'll be overthrown and probably killed, but our consciences won't let us commit a war crime"? You expected that? Trump expected that?
(Especially after Trump and Hegseth loudly proclaimed that they had no problems with committing war crimes and killing innocents themselves? The difference isn't morals; it's that Trump was threatening Iranian civilians which the Iranian regime doesn't care about, while Iran was threatening the world economy which Trump's backers do care about. Both parties were amoral, but one had basically functional intelligence and the other was utterly stupid.)
One might ask why the Iranians didn't seize the Strait before now. Presumably they were afraid of the possible retaliation. Thing is now Trump's got the retaliation in preemptively Iran now has de facto control of the Strait. It's going to be harder to force them to give that up than it was to discourage them from seizing it.
The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
So nothing should be done about the Iran nuclear situation and missiles and drones because everyone is afraid of a hostage situation?
Terrorism indeed.
I imagine Trump went ahead cos he was less afraid of bullies.
You have to stand up to bullies.
In the meantime the anaemic response from those that it actually affects is staggering.
How is the non-nuclear armed state attacked by two nuclear powers, one of which has the largest military budget on the planet and the other of which has just slaughtered 10s of thousands of people and destroyed multiple cities the bully in this scenario?
Exactly. Mind you, on a personal level, just about anyone could be excused for characterising Donald Trump as a bully. Bullies use their power to abuse those with less power.
The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
So nothing should be done about the Iran nuclear situation and missiles and drones because everyone is afraid of a hostage situation?
I don't know how things are on the "centre-right" sites you frequent, but one reason we have what you please to call "intelligent" debate here is that we try to respond to what the other party said, rather than repeating our earlier points with more moral outrage. If you're looking for intelligent debate I suggest you try it.
It seems to me that you are falling for the Politicians' Fallacy: "Something had to be done! Trump did something. Therefore, Trump did what had to be done." But if the something Trump did was worse than doing nothing - it failed, it was always going to fail, it made things worse - the fact that "something" needed to be done is not a defence.
As Alan Cresswell pointed out, Obama had struck a deal which Trump abandoned.
Terrorism indeed.
I imagine Trump went ahead cos he was less afraid of bullies.
You have to stand up to bullies.
And yet Trump went ahead because he is a bully, having the largest conventional military in the world, and you're saying it's "unfair" that Iran stood up to him. If Australia had done something similar had it been attacked by China, would you be saying that Australia should just roll over?
Anyway, if Trump had been standing up to Iran he would have sent in the boots on the ground. He didn't.
The sequence of events was that Trump attacked Iran (because Netanyahu told him to); Iran closed the Persian Gulf; Trump agreed to negotiate the Iranian peace plan. (Not you note his own peace plan.) That is not Trump standing up to a bully. That is Trump chickening out. TACO.
In the meantime the anaemic response from those that it actually affects is staggering.
Everything is staggering if you can't be bothered to understand it.
Well, the talks have failed. Hardly surprising given how far apart the positions of those talking actually are.
It’s raised yet again for me the deep scepticism I felt at the time about what Trump was saying in advance about reasonable communication with someone in Iran with power and influence.
At best it must have been wishful thinking. At worst it was just a ploy to support whatever was going on in that confused mind.
Well, the talks have failed. Hardly surprising given how far apart the positions of those talking actually are.
It’s raised yet again for me the deep scepticism I felt at the time about what Trump was saying in advance about reasonable communication with someone in Iran with power and influence.
At best it must have been wishful thinking. At worst it was just a ploy to support whatever was going on in that confused mind.
There's a lovely viral meme at the moment with the past 7 presidents of the US saying Iran is a danger, we should do something about it, then Trump saying "okay".
This is a longstanding issue. Trump is the only one that had the guts to try do something about it.
You're forgetting that under Obama there was a deal agreed, that meant that Iran stopped work on nuclear weapons with international inspections confirming that, in return for a slight easing of economic sanctions. If Trump hadn't reneged on that deal then the Middle East could well be a much better place for all of us. Doing something doesn't necessarily only cover bombing other countries back to the stone age.
Why did Trump renege on the deal? I imagine there would have been good reasons. I believe the deal was controversial at the time and Israel was flat out against it as it put them at further risk.
Comments
The rest is what we see.
Not the 100% total victory claimed by Trump and Hegseth, but a monumental cock-up which will affect the world for years to come, even if it were to stop now.
You may be interested in this piece from the NY Times (free link) which reports on the process by which the decision to go to war was reached. TL;DR: Netanyahu sold Trump on the idea, and no one spoke up forcefully enough against it. What passes for military leadership here didn't actually give "best advice":
It is noted in the comments on the Times site and elsewhere that it is extremely likely that VP JD Vance and/or people close to him were the sources for this piece, as it works hard to distance him from this unmitigated disaster:
Did you read the NY Times reporting? It's more than a suggestion there.
Interesting that the CIA thought the Israeli presentation was farcical. It was.
I wonder if Trump has private regrets about anything? Doesn’t seem very likely.
Vance may be playing a high stakes game for high office.
I see Trump is still slagging off NATO. That’s the man. It’s always someone else’s fault.
I don't follow?
It’s a quotation from George Orwell’s 1984 - propaganda of the ‘Big Brother’ government.
A second thought re General Caine. It wouldn’t be surprising, as the article suggests, that Caine’s approach was influenced by what happened to General Milley. And his predecessor, from the first Trump administration, “Mad dog”Mattis. Attempts to directly dissuade Trump tend to get you sacked.
Perhaps Caine is following a very moderate version of President Johnson’s famous observation. “It’s better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in”. Provided that the pissing out is not too powerful. Trump sees disloyalty early.
There is a link here from The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (our version of the BBC). Also an article in the New York Times.
From the ABC
In short:
US President Donald Trump says he believes China was responsible for bringing Iran to the ceasefire negotiating table.
China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi says he has held 26 phone calls with his counterparts in Iran, Israel, Russia and Gulf countries.
Thank you.
How can you say that?
It's not standing up to the US and Israel, it's attacking neighbours that are not involved and holding hostage the strait of hormuz to the detriment of the world, not the US and Israel.
It's underhanded and unfair.
True to form.
That is entirely Iran's doing. They didn't have to target innocents.
When you say underhand, are you forgetting America & Israel attacked *whilst* they were in negotiations with Iran. Apparently, in part, because the American negotiators did not understand the technical issues: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/18/ignorance-misunderstanding-obfuscation-iran-nuclear-talks-trump
They are just playing the best strategic card they hold in defence of their national identity.
It’s a retaliation against a sudden and massive attack, by the US and Israel, which has cost a lot more lives and damage than the retaliation.
I don’t see your logic.
It's called terrorism.
Negotiations with Iran have been doing on for decades.
There's a lovely viral meme at the moment with the past 7 presidents of the US saying Iran is a danger, we should do something about it, then Trump saying "okay".
This is a longstanding issue. Trump is the only one that had the guts to try do something about it.
@Barnabas62 Their best strategic card is in keeping will longstanding terrorism in proxy groups in the Middle East.
Holding the Strait of Hormuz is terrorism because it affects people beyond the attackers. Simple as that.
And the attack wasn't sudden. It's been brewing for decades. They were ready.
And you can go into numbers of deaths but you'd have to look back far into history.
As for national identity? No. It's the regime.
My neighbour is a diaspora Iranian post Revolution and they have the old monarchic flag up with an Australian flag outside their house.
#solidarity
Doing something stupid and dangerous isn't "guts" it's just stupidity, as evidenced by Trump desperately trying to reverse out of the mess he's made.
Decades of negotiations avoided Iran developing nuclear weapons and avoided the death and destruction triggered by Trump's stupidity. Blockading trade routes isn't "terrorism", it's part and parcel of warfare. Threatening genocide, on the other hand, is a war crime.
I note with regret the Trumpathy. He certainly doesn’t get any sympathy from me. This action doesn’t demonstrate guts. It demonstrates strategic stupidity.
And I agree with other comments by @Arethosemyfeet
It was true to form. That's why every serious commentator on military strategy knew Iran would do it if the survival of the regime. You expected the Iranian regime to say to itself, "well, if we don't do this we'll be overthrown and probably killed, but our consciences won't let us commit a war crime"? You expected that? Trump expected that?
(Especially after Trump and Hegseth loudly proclaimed that they had no problems with committing war crimes and killing innocents themselves? The difference isn't morals; it's that Trump was threatening Iranian civilians which the Iranian regime doesn't care about, while Iran was threatening the world economy which Trump's backers do care about. Both parties were amoral, but one had basically functional intelligence and the other was utterly stupid.)
One might ask why the Iranians didn't seize the Strait before now. Presumably they were afraid of the possible retaliation. Thing is now Trump's got the retaliation in preemptively Iran now has de facto control of the Strait. It's going to be harder to force them to give that up than it was to discourage them from seizing it.
The reason the last seven Presidents didn't do this wasn't that they didn't have the guts; it was that they had the brains. Trump doesn't get credit for guts given he was too stupid to see why he shouldn't do it.
He won't like that but the argument runs that he has to stick close to Trump if he wants re-election. Trump's more popular in Israel than Netanyahu an American pundit suggested in an interview on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime.
On the Straits of Hormuz, Iran has blocked that in the past without there being a pre-emptive strike by Israel and the US. How much more likely was that going to be now that's there been such a strike?
Ok, so Israel wouldn't hit Iran in the first place if it wasn't supporting Hezbollah and wasn't a perceived existential threat.
But to cry foul when they do so when under attack is a piece of twisted logic.
We all know what Netanyahu wants
What does Trump want?
He was complaining the other day that he wants the oil but the American people won't allow him to because they don't like the war.
Blaming his own people for not letting him get what he wants.
The whole situation is completely bizarre.
Or all Trump needed at the time was a face saving way out the escalation path he'd initiated, and he either knew and didn't care or was counting on the Israelis to test the agreement later.
When was that? If you are thinking of the so-called Tanker War, that was preceded by an Iraqi invasion of Iran which was supported by the US and its allies (up to and including supporting the chemical weapons program of Saddam Hussein).
I think some are interested in making a desert and calling it peace.
My God. What a prospect.
There are, of course, many people in Israel opposed to Netanyahu and his evil ways.
Whimsical Christian
If you haven’t done so already, please look at the link Ruth provided for free. It explains many things.
Exactly. Trump and Co had four years out of power to figure out how they had been stymied in the first administration and aren't letting that happen now. Loyalty to Trump is the litmus test this time.
I have a hard time even taking on board that Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz is a war crime -- what else were they supposed to do? As you say, everyone who ever war-gamed a US invasion of Iran knew it would be a disaster. If it's a war crime, it's an American war crime, given that we knew they'd throttle the strait if we invaded. And we'll suffer the least pain, no matter how much people here complain about gas prices.
Peace deals are actual deals where all parties know what they've agreed to. The only place the US ever had this peace deal with Iran was in Trump's fevered imagination.
@Alan Cresswell please see your inbox, ship & flaccess.
Thanks,
DT
[/tangent]
From the article:
I suspect all parties want to talk up China's role. Iran wants to look like it's got less of what it wanted so it can threaten to back out; Trump wants it to look like Iran was dragged to the negotiating table so he can pretend he's acting tough and not negotiating on Iran's terms; China wants to look statesmanlike and reasonable to build influence.
Mining neutral waters and destroying shipping from neutral countries is a war crime.
Whether a nation may commit what would otherwise be war crimes if it is the only way to avoid total defeat at the hands of a more powerful aggressor is I believe a disputed question in just war theory. I think the judgement that it can is required to make a nuclear deterrent permissible.
War crime or not, controlling the Strait is an effective strategy. And of course Iran can play the national survival card. They are playing it under unprecedented duress.
I’m not sure how it would go in the event that it got before the international court.
I suspect the defence Iran would use is to challenge claims of neutrality, given that it promised free passage to countries that weren't allies of the US or Israel (and given the ships are primarily carrying oil would that not be considered war material?). Was it even confirmed that Iran had mined the strait?
Re mining in international waters there’s no doubt Iran had and probably still has the capability. Whether they’ve actually done it or not is another matter.
Like the use of drones or missiles on trapped tankers, the threat is probably more powerful than the execution.
So nothing should be done about the Iran nuclear situation and missiles and drones because everyone is afraid of a hostage situation?
Terrorism indeed.
I imagine Trump went ahead cos he was less afraid of bullies.
You have to stand up to bullies.
In the meantime the anaemic response from those that it actually affects is staggering.
There was a perfectly good agreement in place from 2015 which Trump chose to rip up
It's one thing to stand up to a bully when you are the only person who will be hurt if the bully hits back. Then your only responsibility is to judge whether you mind being hurt yourself.
When you confront a bully who has power to hurt a great many other people and may do so in retaliation, you have a responsibility to weigh up whether your actions will make things better or worse for the other people, and whether there's another way to achieve making things better for the other people.
I read your post as saying that standing up to bullies is inherently a good thing. But standing up to the bully won't automatically stop them being a bully in future. I would say that standing up to a bully when your actions will make things worse for other people and the bully won't stop what they're doing, isn't a good thing.
[I am saying this as a philosophical/ethical point in general not commenting on the specific countries or the current world situation except as it relates to the general point.]
How is the non-nuclear armed state attacked by two nuclear powers, one of which has the largest military budget on the planet and the other of which has just slaughtered 10s of thousands of people and destroyed multiple cities the bully in this scenario?
Exactly. Mind you, on a personal level, just about anyone could be excused for characterising Donald Trump as a bully. Bullies use their power to abuse those with less power.
It seems to me that you are falling for the Politicians' Fallacy: "Something had to be done! Trump did something. Therefore, Trump did what had to be done." But if the something Trump did was worse than doing nothing - it failed, it was always going to fail, it made things worse - the fact that "something" needed to be done is not a defence.
As Alan Cresswell pointed out, Obama had struck a deal which Trump abandoned.
And yet Trump went ahead because he is a bully, having the largest conventional military in the world, and you're saying it's "unfair" that Iran stood up to him. If Australia had done something similar had it been attacked by China, would you be saying that Australia should just roll over?
Anyway, if Trump had been standing up to Iran he would have sent in the boots on the ground. He didn't.
The sequence of events was that Trump attacked Iran (because Netanyahu told him to); Iran closed the Persian Gulf; Trump agreed to negotiate the Iranian peace plan. (Not you note his own peace plan.) That is not Trump standing up to a bully. That is Trump chickening out. TACO.
Everything is staggering if you can't be bothered to understand it.
It’s raised yet again for me the deep scepticism I felt at the time about what Trump was saying in advance about reasonable communication with someone in Iran with power and influence.
At best it must have been wishful thinking. At worst it was just a ploy to support whatever was going on in that confused mind.
What’s next?
Armageddon!
More money made for the very rich.
Why did Trump renege on the deal? I imagine there would have been good reasons. I believe the deal was controversial at the time and Israel was flat out against it as it put them at further risk.