8 ms·

Ali Gholhaki, an Iranian journalist who often publishes first-hand news about impending developments with the IRGC, has reported that the US's demands were the

• postsantum 6mo ago
  It looks like a face-saving effort rather than negotiations. Especially considering Vance arrived with his supervisors
• drnick1 6mo ago
  > Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything. The Iranians have some missiles and drones left, but they are increasingly isolated and on their last legs economically. These "talks" have to be understood as a negotiated surrender that would leave what is left of the regime in place in exchange for complete disarmament.
  • ElProlactin 6mo ago
    Comments like this ignore all the lessons from Vietnam and, to a large extent, Afghanistan. There's a reason "the U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily".
    • megamike 6mo ago
      "History does not repeat itself, it rhymes"
      • __patchbit__ 6mo ago
        BigWar and BigAI may install surprise on the storyline.
  • mempko 6mo ago
    Iran has showed it's neighbors something powerful which is US military can not protect you. The damage Iran did to us military bases is under reported.
    • iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
      FWIW, the whole conflict is a study on how much wars have changed. Information was always a part of it, but I have never seen it at a point, where I am entirely unsure on what is actually happening. Granted, some of the confusion appears to be by design courtesy of our president, who considers flailing some sort of grand strategy ( which may well work in real estate, but is ill-suited for something like this ). I can only speak for myself, but I find myself hesitating hard. I have zero doubt everyone is lying, but I have never seen such a wide chasm between two versions of the world we all occupy.
      • SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
        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.
        • iugtmkbdfil834 6mo ago
          What you say might be true, but what you are saying this with some benefit of hindsight ( and even that is incomplete as we will likely learn more in years to come ). << 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. And this is exactly what I am referring to. The physical reality is what it is and won't care much for propaganda ( even soviet Russia eventually learned you can't sustain that forever ). But, to your point, I don't see both sides showing much hesitation. If it helps, I am not saying you are wrong, but you may be already too entrenched in your worldview if you see fog of war as 'defense mechanism' and not a designed feature now supercharged by AI ( with some fascinating examples too ).
  • petesergeant 6mo ago
    > When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything If they can keep Hormuz closed, they are absolutely in a position to demand things from a president whose party will be toast if gas prices rise too much.
  • hgoel 6mo ago
    Insane reasoning after threatening genocide, the "no quarter" comment, previous bad faith negotiations, then further bombing the people trying to negotiate in previous attempts. This isn't just about the current regime wanting to stay in power, do you think the average Iranian is going to trust the side that literally threatened to end their civilization overnight? That goes far beyond calling for regime change.
    • WarmWash 6mo ago
      May I remind you the Iranian regime was locking down the internet and shooting protesters in the street in the weeks leading up to the attack.
      • hgoel 6mo ago
        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.
        • WarmWash 6mo ago
          Trump is not particularly intelligent.
      • postsantum 6mo ago
        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
        • WarmWash 6mo ago
  • bawolff 6mo ago
    > The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. That's true, but also irrelavent. USA probably could do these things if they tried, given enough time and resources. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Hence negotiations. Iran probably sees that the war is incredibly unpopular in USA and figures trump lacks the political capital to continue, so they are probably trying to drive a hard bargain. In turn, Trump might in turn decide continuing is cheaper than the onerous terms iran wants and continue the war. I predict more war, since as much as this war is politically bad for trump, he also hates "losing".
    • drnick1 6mo ago
      > It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Events so far suggest the opposite. This is the first president in decades that took decisive action against Iran. Iran is weaker than ever, and 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.
      • CapricornNoble 6mo ago
        >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 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?
      • bawolff 6mo ago
        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.
  • Rotdhizon 6mo ago
    It is heavily speculated that the rescue op on the downed pilot was a cover for a failed op regarding HEU extraction in that area. The info available on it online makes no sense for it to have just been a rescue op. What legitimate reports detail their military losses? Practically every single thing the US is pushing out is pure untrustworthy propaganda on the subject. Even if those specific elements are destroyed, it doesn't mean much. Planes and boats are for forward aggression. They have primarily been wrecking havoc with missiles and drones, which they supposedly have plenty more of. Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West. China isn't going to let such a massive intelligence and military asset go to waste. I'd just about guarantee they were involved in strong arming Pakistan into pushing for peace talks last week to avoid the threatened total destruction. Short of a nuke being dropped or the entire country being bombed to shreds, Iran isn't going anywhere any time soon.
    • mandeepj 6mo ago
      > Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West Yeah, Iran is just front face, this is Russia and China’s war. Latter entity gets to test all their technology, ammunition without actually being in the war. They did the same thing by using Pakistan while they were fighting India. https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/politics/us-intelligence-iran-china-weapons https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/politics/us-intelligence-iran...
      • Gud 6mo ago
        This is USAs war, nobody else wants it.
      • queenkjuul 6mo ago
        This war belongs to Bibi and Donny and nobody else
        • mandeepj 6mo ago
          Totally! I was talking about Iran as a defending country
  • SpicyLemonZest 6mo ago
    But why hasn't the US come close to trying given their overwhelming advantages in firepower? To me, and I suspect to Iran, it seems clear that it's because the Trump regime fears the domestic costs of doing so. He's already feuding with formerly loyal cronies in the media over a dozen military deaths and $4 gas; can he really afford to risk what the response might be to hundreds or thousands of dead American soldiers with little to show for it but an extended oil crisis?
  • bertylicious 6mo ago
    Interesting. It seems like you're one of those persons that actually believe what Trump and Hegseth are saying regarding the war. Is that so?
  • general1465 6mo ago
    This is comment on level "Russia did not try to fight properly yet!"
• fnordpiglet 6mo ago
  My guess is it’s a chance to restock and reposition air defense as the slow attrition of interceptors was starting to open holes in the air defense. This administration has used negotiations as a diversion for further attacks on Iran and I suspect this is no different. I also suspect the Iranians know this and are likewise doing their best to prepare for them to fail.
  • bawolff 6mo ago
    That's true of pretty much every ceasefire ever, and both sides are almost certainly taking advantage of the ceasefire to do that. Even ceasefires entered in good faith often collapse so countries always try and reposition stuff during the ceasefire for when/if that happens.
    • 4gotunameagain 6mo ago
      This is not true. The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy, only continuation of the atrocities. This is not a ceasefire entered in bad faith, it is simply a strategic usage of one of the few tools that can end a war, and in my opinion morally abhorrent.
      • Protostome 6mo ago
        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
        • 4gotunameagain 6mo ago
          Like you I do not have a direct line with the diplomats of the involved countries, but every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement. What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel. The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.
• 3eb7988a1663 6mo ago
  >Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile I did not think this was possible. The three sites that were bombed in 2025 are all pretty centrally located within the country. Even if you can get troops there, the facilities are hardened and at least partially underground. Depending on how effective you believe the 2025 strikes to be, some of the facilities may be collapsed under tons of rock. There is no way to smash-and-grab the already enriched uranium.
  • recursivecaveat 6mo ago
    Yeah they buried almost 1000 tons of it under rubble last year. Good luck digging that up easily. Some analyist suggests that 1000+ troops per location would be required: https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-enriched-uranium-nuclear-troops-819338075c3793128ed924560d6a59ff https://apnews.com/article/trump-iran-enriched-uranium-nucle...
  • adrian_b 6mo ago
    It seems that there was a failed US incursion towards Isfahan, where much of the enriched uranium is buried, a week ago. They could not reach their target and they had to scuttle and abandon two MC-130J airplanes and a helicopter, apparently because they were too damaged by the air defense to fly back. The official version is that the purpose of the failed incursion was to save the crew of the previously shot down F-15E. However, the use of a greatly disproportionate amount of people and aircraft for a supposed search and rescue mission has lead to the speculation that the true goal of the failed incursion was the extraction of the uranium and that the downed F-15E had participated to the preparation of this mission. It is estimated that the cost of this operation has been around a half of billion dollars. While the 2 men from the F-15E were saved successfully, it seems that this should have been easy to achieve at a cost much less than a couple hundred million dollars per head, which makes believable the hypothesis that most of the operation was unrelated to saving people, but it intended to reach the uranium deposits.
    • 3eb7988a1663 6mo ago
      Public information on Isfahan says the entrances to the underground areas is still caved in from the prior bombings. Unless the Iranians have already dug out the tunnels, the soldiers would have to land in enemy territory with their own heavy equipment. Then attempt to excavate the area while open to counterattack. If it were so easy that commandos could drop in and dig out the site in a day - seems improbable that the Iranians would not have already done the same. If the Iranians had already excavated the tunnels, it would seem prudent to immediately move the uranium to another location.
• nostrademons 6mo ago
  Iran's state media reported that the F-15 rescue mission was a cover to steal enriched uranium, something which fits the facts a lot more than them constructing an airstrip in enemy territory and blowing up at least two MC-130s just to rescue a pilot: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/did-us-try-to-steal-uranium-in-iran-under-guise-of-f-15-pilot-rescue-mission-170-plane-operation-raises-questions/articleshow/130076650.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/did-us... Also suspicious that Iran came to the negotiating table just a couple days after the F-15 mission after insisting for the other 5 weeks that there would be no negotiating and they were not even in contact with Washington.
  • 3eb7988a1663 6mo ago
    I have my doubts. There was a previous BBC piece[0] which went into some of the challenges with such a mission. The first being: it is not publicly known where Iran is storing its uranium. There are many putative options, most of which are going to be hardened and underground. Isfahan is near the middle of the country - safely getting troops there would already be challenging, let alone digging up any from the collapsed tunnels. Minor blurb from the article: Satellite imagery shows that the entrances to Isfahan and Natanz were badly damaged by US airstrikes. US forces would likely need heavy machinery to dig through rubble in order to locate the enriched uranium, which is believed to be stored in tunnels buried deep underground - all while facing potential counterattacks from Iran. "You've first got to excavate the site and detect [the enriched uranium] while likely being under near constant threat," Campbell said. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglv5v4yvpo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvglv5v4yvpo
    • adrian_b 6mo ago
      While it is hard to believe that someone in the US military believed that such a mission for uranium extraction can be successful, it is at least equally hard to believe that the US military has spent around a half of billion dollars just for saving 2 men, while also risking the lives of a very large number of other US combatants. Saving your men is important, but it should have been easy to do that at a much lower cost and at much lower risks of additional personnel losses, if that had been the true mission goal.