> The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy

Israel has pretty consistently claimed they never agreed to a ceasefire in lebanon (and nobody is claiming this ceasefire changed anything in Gaza). Iran seemed to only claim the ceasefire included lebanon later on and not initially (afaict, not 100% sure). Honestly it makes one wonder if the terms were even written down. Seems like an easy solution to this problem would be to just publicly release the ceasefire agreement document.

Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself

One thing that's repeatedly impressed me throughout the war is how effectively the Iranians have been able to tailor their PR and diplomatic strategies based on their deep understanding of American domestic politics and the West in general. I had always assumed that the Iranian leadership would have a closed-off and insular mindset, but many of them are highly educated and have spent years studying the West and Western diplomacy, have studied at Western universities, or otherwise spent long periods in the West. A few examples:

- Iran's foreign minister has a Ph.D in political thought from the University of Kent

- Iran's deputy foreign minister has a BS and MS in civil engineering from the University of Kansas, an MA in international political economy and development from Fordham University, and a Ph.D in political science from the University of Bern

- One of the main advisors to Iran's negotiating team grew up in Richmond, VA, has a Ph.D in English literature from the University of Birmingham, and is the former head of the North American Studies graduate program at the University of Tehran

I bet that there are people in the US defense department or intelligence community who have a similarly deep understanding of Iranian domestic politics, but I doubt that anyone in the US negotiating team or the current US political leadership in general really cares to hear what they have to say.

More likely they chose Vance because he is one the few people at the top of the administration who doesn’t have very close ties with Israel.

It's frustrating how genuinely effective Iran's management of the information war has been. This, the Lego things, the front-running of TACO moments. They understand the White House decision-making process better than the White House does[1].

And let's be clear: that's very bad. Iran is a bad actor. Iran does bad things and an empowered Iran is a disaster for the region. Yet Iran is able to keep goading Trump into making everything worse.

[1] Because obviously the WH doesn't have a clue what's in the president's head. He announced a blockade this morning, seemingly, literally because he read it in some pundit article.

Silver linings if Iran does in Trump, erases Vance's chance, and gets oil to $200 so people will finally start to feel pain for continuing to burn fossil fuels.

Why would that be prudent? Seems to me the underground fortress is working well.

Familiarise yourself with the SANDY aircrew rescue missions in Vietnam.

Vast amounts of hardware and many American lives were lost trying to recover downed pilots, even when it was known it was a body retrieval operation.

For one famous example, the rescue of BAT21 Bravo resulted in the loss of five aircraft, the deaths of eleven and two taken as POWs.

It is a point of principle that the USAF does not apply a 'cost effectiveness' test to aircrew recovery.

I can certainly believe that the assurance the US gives to its pilots that they will never be left behind and the public demonstration of that assurance as something the US values in the billions of dollars.

It is also clear that if the mission was not a purely rescue mission then it would have taken a lot more equipment than what appears to have been used. Even for an escalade style high-risk low-probability mission it would be inadequate.

I think the most likely version of the claim would be that the Pentagon would have used the planning and execution of the mission as a valuable opportunity to learn for a dedicated mission to extract uranium in a contestable theatre. But even that is pushing it.

BigWar and BigAI may install surprise on the storyline.

This is USAs war, nobody else wants it.

This war belongs to Bibi and Donny and nobody else

With respect, I think it's extremely clear what's actually happening, and the idea that it's confusing is a defense mechanism. The US and Israel launched a series of decapitation strikes, with the explicit and repeatedly stated expectation that this would lead to the overthrow of the Iranian government.

Then it didn't work, so they started a strategic bombing campaign.

Then that campaign proved ineffective at keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, leading to a sustained oil crisis.

So now here we are, with the entire world in a worse position than the status quo, and yet neither the US nor Iran feeling so defeated that they're willing to accept a conclusion worse than the status quo.

How does that justify threatening genocide and the end of their civilization?

Having previously lived in Iran for 4 years, I know that the Iranian regime is very oppressive and cruel, but all the US has done is fuel them. They thought that bombing Iran and killing Khamenei would lead to civil war and a collapse of the regime. It did none of that and invited retaliation. In return, the US just made all of the regime's claims true by making the very threats the regime had been saying were the US's intentions for the Iranian people.

Being precise and consistent in messaging that the goal was regime change would've been the absolute bare minimum bar for lending credibility to this war.

Didn't americans/israelis admit recently they had mossad agents to incite the violence and supplied guns?

Hamfisted propaganda is not working as well as before

May i remind you that literally nothing on earth justifies genocide

LMAO ok, I mean that's bad but if we're referencing history to contextualize a situation let's start with the USA and UK deciding that "sovereign country" isn't a real thing if they vote to nationalize their oil industry. We're heading toward decade 8 of FAFO here with zero lessons learned.

Similar shit happening in North Korea. Should the US go there next?

Regime change was NOT the goal, right? Wasn't that the party line?

>this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region will be at peace.

This is the exact same nonsense that Netanyahu said to the US Congress in 2002, when he insisted we invade Iraq. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PDpwL8kuY

And what is the "Islamic threat", exactly? Why would attacking Iran end that threat, when the perpetrators of 9/11, for example, were mostly Saudis?

What you say is absolutely ridiculous.

Israel would have been now at permanent peace if they had not murdered Yitzhak Rabin, or if Ariel Sharon had not succeeded to sabotage the government of Ehud Barak and to restart the hostilities with the Palestinians.

No matter how much they succeed to destroy in Iran, that will never bring peace any closer. By going on this path, there is only one way to achieve "peace": kill every Iranian, man, woman and child, and kill every descendant of Palestinians, man, woman and child and also kill any other Arabs or Muslims who may feel solidarity with genocide victims. Until the "final solution" is achieved, any human who is killed makes peace less likely, not more likely. Therefore any supporter of the idea that the Iran war means "progress towards peace" is a supporter of the "final solution".

The reason why there is no peace is because a part of the elites of Israel do not want peace, because the permanent state of war in Israel has been extremely profitable for them. In no other country is it possible to exploit the employees so hard as in Israel, because those who would attempt to have a better balance between work and personal life would be labeled as non-patriotic traitors, who want their country to be defeated by its enemies. This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.

I agree with most of what you wrote other than the first sentence. Iran is weak right now, relative to the past. That is probably why the war is happening now as opposed to in the past.

Nonetheless, Trump has been utterly incompetent on the political side of things. There is low support for the war in USA, which directly translates to being risk averse when it comes to casualities (or even short term oil prices!). Trump is happy to bomb iran from planes. He does not seem willing to put american soldiers at risk in a significant way or be in it for the long haul. I'm pretty sure Iran has noticed this and it informs their strategy.