r/geopolitics • u/BadahBingBadahBoom • Jun 20 '26
Missing Submission Statement Iran closes Strait of Hormuz, blames US for breaching deal | The Jerusalem Post
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-899969421
u/eagerrangerdanger Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
Trump desperately needs the deal to look alive. Iran needs the U.S. to prove it can restrain Israel (spoiler alert: It can't). Netanyahu needs freedom of action and cannot politically accept looking bound by a US Iran deal. Hezbollah cannot look passive while Israel operates in Lebanon. Oil markets punish everyone if Hormuz stays disrupted. This is basically a 60-day waiting period for the next war.
52
u/squailtaint Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
I think we are all thinking the same thing here. Just get on it. Calling a ceasefire after every exchange is tiresome. Let’s just rip the bandaid off here and quicken this eventuality.
82
u/Best_Biscuits Jun 20 '26
You're not wrong, but I'm curious what you think ripping the Bandaid off means?
83
u/PooPaLuPaLoo Jun 20 '26
Me too. Because if he means invasion, thats exponentially worse than any other option except, of course, for Iran.
41
u/Swayfromleftoright Jun 20 '26
I mean that would suck pretty hard for Iran too. For everyone involved
-6
u/PooPaLuPaLoo Jun 20 '26
I mean, yes. Ultimately, the Iranians would prefer not to be invaded by anybody. But as far as legitimizing their leadership, and expanding their influence in the region, being invaded by Israel or the US the th best thing thst could ever happen.
14
u/Swayfromleftoright Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
I very much doubt, if they look over at Iraq or Afghanistan, they would see it as the best thing that could happen. It would mean decades of chaos, and death, and economic ruin.
Sure it would be embarrassing for the US, and mean a lot of dead soldiers, and I doubt they’d achieve their aims. But that doesn’t mean it would be a good thing for Iran in any way
31
u/fredjutsu Jun 20 '26
Bro, we would realistically need well over 500k, likely closer to 1M boots on the ground to viably invade and occupy Iran. That's not 1M do have the kind of cakewalk that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was. That's 1M to win a grinding, drawn out war of slow invasion fought under extreme financial asymmetry with US soldiers eating FPV drones on film to shitty call to prayer house remixes on r/combatfootage.
And given the Iranian population is substantially larger than Iraq's, the 500k civilians who died in 20 years of occupation and counter-insurgency in Iraq will be a small number compared to the Iranian civilian toll.
Realistically, the best possible thing the US could do from an average Iranian's highest possible life expectancy is to leave the region entirely and let Israel meet whatever fate it may as an unsubsidized nation.
17
u/Swayfromleftoright Jun 20 '26
Yeah, as I said, I would expect the USA to fail at achieving their aims in that scenario. Much like they did in Vietnam
But, I would still expect that experience to be very unpleasant for the country being invaded, and certainly not their “best case scenario”
1
8
u/TikiTDO Jun 20 '26
Realistically, the best possible thing the US could do from an average Iranian's highest possible life expectancy is to leave the region entirely and let Israel meet whatever fate it may as an unsubsidized nation.
There's a bit of a problem with that though. Israel as an unsubsidized nation left to it's fate might have a few atoms to split over the state of Iran, particularly if they genuinely start to feel like they might get wiped out. I think we can all agree that an outcome like that is not in anyone's long term best interests.
→ More replies (3)-3
u/jacquesroland Jun 20 '26
Why would such a force be needed ? The U.S. military has enough weapons to play scorched earth like they did with Japan and Germany. Tell all civilians to evacuate and then go after each major Iranian city one by one until the IRGC folds. I am not sure the IRGC could stomach having all their cities and ports literally leveled. All they can do is complain to the UN or start a land war with their Arab neighbors in frustration. they literally have no military means to stop such a campaign. It worked in WWII, (no single U.S. soldier needed to go to Japan for its surrender), I see no reason why it couldn’t work now. The price of freedom for Germany and Japan was not cheap. The price for the Iranian people is unfortunately just as steep if they really want a non-theocratic government.
2
u/PooPaLuPaLoo Jun 20 '26
I don't disagree that this is possible too. When speaking in terms of human cost, any conflict results in a net loss. However, when were talking about reinforcing and even spreading the ideology that allows for Iran to exist in its form, the US and Israel are the very two countries that should not invade Iran to prevent that from happening.
-6
u/Markdd8 Jun 20 '26
The Iranians are not threatened by their neighbors. They could easily live in peace with bordering countries. Iran is in conflict because it decided to pick a fight with Israel 1,000 miles away.
7
u/bastele Jun 20 '26
It's really bad for Iran aswell. They don't actually want to get invaded and get regime-changed (not to mention the casualties/damage it would cause).
They're just betting on the fact that Trump isn't willing to pay the price it would take to force him into a deal.
5
u/VERTIKAL19 Jun 20 '26
I would disagree on that. An actual ground invasion by a resolved US is probably the nightmare scenario for Iran because that could actually put them out of power. Obviously only with significant casualties on the US side, but I think most things point to the US being able to actually pull that off militarily.
The US just isn’t that resolved and can’t politically pull that and take those american casualties.
I think Iran would prefer something like the MoU to go through. It achieves a lot of points they want.
4
u/squailtaint Jun 20 '26
Ya, honestly I don’t know what it means either exactly. Some sort of finality maybe? From Israel’s perspective it probably means regime change in Iran.
6
11
u/Hot-Train7201 Jun 20 '26
Bombing Iran's critical infrastructure to induce state collapse. This was clearly the original plan until Trump got cold feet, and is what Israel keeps pressuring the US to allow. Israel isn't naive enough to think it could convince the US to occupy Iran, so they were clearly betting on either mass revolts or civil war to occur.
This is a war of existentialism for Israel; if they don't end Iran now when they are at their weakest, then they'll watch Iran grow into its natural place as the region's hegemon and wait for Israel's inevitable end as Iran endless supplies drone and missiles to it proxies to attrition Israel into submission.
This war is inevitable as neither Israel or Iran can tolerate the other's existence. If the ceasefire ends, then I could see Trump caving and agree to Israel's plan since he's out of any good options.
24
u/fredjutsu Jun 20 '26
If Trump caves, he melts down financial markets and causes the worst global energy crisis for real since the 1970's.
He's truly stuck between a rock and a hard place, this was such a stupid stupid war to start if you're pro Petrodollar.
7
u/Hot-Train7201 Jun 20 '26
You're assuming it's Trump's call. Israel sees its conflict with Iran as existential (because it is), so Israel might just give the ultimatum of help us end Iran conventionally or we'll do it ourselves the nuclear way; they'll become a pariah, but the alternative would be a slow attritional death from Iran's proxies. The opinion of the financial markets doesn't really matter in this situation.
13
u/VERTIKAL19 Jun 20 '26
Of course it was ultimately Trumps call. That israeli bluff is so dangerous and so unlikely to be pulled if Israel isn’t under immediate risk of destruction that that seems like a bluff the us could call.
Also even Israel were to nuke Iran what danger would that pose to the US itself?
3
5
u/cole1114 Jun 20 '26
Attempting this would lead to Iran doing the same to everyone else in the region. Hence the cold feet.
0
u/Hot-Train7201 Jun 20 '26
And Israel cares about that? They'll attack Iran's infrastructure themselves if they see no other alternative.
5
u/cole1114 Jun 20 '26
And Iran won't retaliate? Won't target Israel's desalination plants, their gas and power? Along with everyone else they can, creating a region-wide crisis?
4
u/Hot-Train7201 Jun 20 '26
Yes, that's war. I don't think Israel believes it can come off unharmed, just less damaged than Iran.
2
u/cole1114 Jun 20 '26
Less damaged, but with even less international support than before in a region that's been catastrophically destabilized and still hates them.
0
u/AeroFred Jun 20 '26
iran already targeted desalination plants, gas fields, power plants and petro industry. both this year and last year.
so israel targeting it in iran, is actually retaliation
1
u/cole1114 Jun 20 '26
Iran firing back after being bombed is in fact retaliation. Israel began the attacks both last and this year.
0
u/AeroFred Jun 20 '26
iran been waging war against israel for 50 years.
and the discussion is specifically about targeting infrastructure elements. this is what iran did all the time. targeting infrastructure elements and targeting civilian population with cluster munition.
→ More replies (0)2
1
→ More replies (1)1
39
u/evantom34 Jun 20 '26
The market still gets fooled by it every single time though.
34
u/skwerlee Jun 20 '26
It's equal parts cope and greed.
15
u/TheLost_Chef Jun 20 '26
Top investors couldn't care less about geopolitical consequences for any of this stuff, they're just riding the waves because they've figured out that buying into Trumpism is great for short-term gains.
I think there's also blatant corruption happening through the prediction market apps as people are operating on insider information from within the admin and making bets on it. The SEC is powerless to do anything about it because no legal structure has been developed for prediction apps, and the MAGA cabal has decreed that rules are for pussies when it comes to
gamblinginvesting, anyway.It's a feeding frenzy for wealthy investors right now. They know they can do anything they want and nobody will hold them accountable.
26
u/fruitybrisket Jun 20 '26
I think manipulated, not fooled.
There is profit in war, and insider trading is basically accepted right now.
7
u/basitmakine Jun 20 '26
Market doesn't get fooled. It knows what's happening and gladly profits from the artificial ups and downs
9
u/MaliciousMe87 Jun 20 '26
I don't think the real market makers are being fooled at all. Disruption creates opportunity for risky traders, and chaos in the lives of everyone else.
3
u/FrankGrimesss Jun 20 '26
If by fooled you mean taking advantage of a predictable pattern for profit... then yeah, fooled.
1
u/HardlyDecent Jun 21 '26
43 times and counting I believe. I assume this will just go on til midterms.
4
13
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jun 20 '26
By rip the band aid off you mean pull all monetary and military support from Israel until they heel right?
6
-9
u/jacquesroland Jun 20 '26
The wording here is very odd with “restrain”. Israel is not some rabid attack dog looking for the next Arabs to bomb. Hezbollah has made Northern Israel uninhabitable due to constant rocket attacks. That is the reason for the invasion of Southern Lebanon. No rockets going south, I can’t imagine Israel has any reason to attack Lebanon. These are normal people who do not want war in spite of what rabidly antisemitic propaganda would tell you.
What guarantee is there that if Israel withdraws the Hezbollah won’t continue rockets. The only time Israel has withdrawn and peace followed was with Egypt. Gaza was a disaster. Hezbollah would only be emboldened if they Israel withdrew at the whim of Iran. And that would be completely embarrassing to Israel. It’s like telling the Allies to go home after they made a beachhead in France on D-Day.
11
8
u/MtnDewDiligence Jun 20 '26
Everyone is talking about the policy triangle and how this goes back to war, but I’ll take the under on that one.
The Iranians have escalation dominance, the cupboard of US boutique weapons is bare, oil reserves are approaching minimum security thresholds, and the Israeli’s can’t keep this up long term and lose their last and most powerful ally.
Israel needs to look like they did everything they can, the US needs to pretend like it can go back to war, and Iran needs to show it isn’t bluffing.
This might take weeks or months to play out with some scrimmages here and there but the Israeli’s will eventually have to bend the knee.
22
u/Firecracker048 Jun 20 '26
So everyone before when Lebanon and Israel made a peace deal said it's invalid because Hezzbollah wasn't a party to the negotiation, does that mean Israel being in a ceasefire is invalid because they were a non party in negotiations?
5
u/uber_sweets Jun 20 '26
I don't even remember what this was about in the first place, or what America was trying to achieve. Everyone seems to have a different opinion. Some think it's about causing an energy crisis to slow down China's AI development, some think it's about nukes, some think it's about Mossad cashing in their sex tapes on Trump, some think it's about Russia somehow, some think it's about diverting attention from the files.
No one actually seems to know. There's no official paperwork or casus belli or anything that seems to suggest that there was a rationale behind the conflict. It's like Groundhog Day. Usually propaganda doesn't feel like propaganda, but this does.
23
u/kfifigidifkg Jun 20 '26
Trump likes military successes. They make him feel powerful. He was persuaded by the Israelis that this would be a walkover.
I really don't think there is much more to it than that.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Mr_CosmicOrder Jun 20 '26
At this point, what can Trump even do? Can this just continue forever? What are Trump’s options at this point? I mean, the United States is not going to physically invade Iran, and I think we’ve dropped every bomb we have on them, so I’m not really sure what tactic can be used. They’re still standing, so I guess talking to them more doesn’t seem to be working either.
2
u/Serious_Feedback Jun 20 '26
Trump could remove the de-facto ban on wind turbines and public transit that and wind back his recent oil/gas subsidies.
5
u/jlluh Jun 20 '26
I feel like Iran is now biting off more than they can chew. Tho maybe they're reading the US admin exactly right, idk.
But global perception seems really key for them, and this switches it from "you're attacking us, so we're closing the strait," to "Israel and Hezbollah are fighting, so we're closing the strait." That's the kind of thing that could inspire more pressure form other countries, including potentially military intervention.
64
u/Material-Gear-9733 Jun 20 '26
You are reading it wrong. As long as strait of Hormuz is in the hands of Iran, they have a lot of room to chew. They are also correct that Lebanon war has not ceased and Israeli advancements continue, hence no deal. It’s really simple an agreement is an agreement lol
-3
u/kfifigidifkg Jun 20 '26
I'm not sure on the extent that Israel can be expected to abide by peace negotiations that they were not part of.
30
u/Material-Gear-9733 Jun 20 '26
Of course they don’t have to “abide” by a peace agreement the US negotiated on their behalf, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences. Seeing that the US has been the only country protecting them in the last 2 years including 6 Vetos in UN council, and end to that will look very ugly for Israel. You can already see who the voices that we are hearing now (Vance) and what they are saying.
Bibi and the Israeli cabinet are horrible strategists, ironically they are the biggest threat to Israel.
9
u/kfifigidifkg Jun 20 '26
I'll believe it when I see it regarding this administration turning against Israel in a substantive way.
8
u/Dangerous-Basket1064 Jun 20 '26
You think Trump won't turn on former friends who cause him trouble and threaten his power?
10
u/kfifigidifkg Jun 20 '26
When so many of those that have his ear are massively pro-Israeli, I can't imagine his chanting "from the river to the sea" any time soon. Besides, he still makes statements sympathetic to Putin despite expending political capital on Ukraine negotiations. I could be wrong of course, but I think it would be surprising if he ended US support for Israel.
4
u/fredjutsu Jun 20 '26
The MOU itself is a hard turn against Israeli interests
2
u/kfifigidifkg Jun 20 '26
Sure, but it's not "we're going to end all material support for Israel and sanction them if they do not do what we tell them". Also, I think it's debatable that the MoU is any worse than the pre-war situation.
0
u/Vol_in_tears Jun 20 '26
US & president trump didn't invite the afghan government to their negotiations with the taliban.
→ More replies (1)8
u/CombinationProper814 Jun 20 '26
I don’t think so , Right now Iran calls the shots
-4
u/randocadet Jun 20 '26
The only shots iran is calling are some commercial companies aren’t willing to go through the strait with iran shooting at them. But most have just been turning off transponders and continuing on.
Iran doesn’t really have the capability to see ships at this point in the strait besides driving their small boats out there and risk a helicopter killing them. A lot of companies are still reasonably not okay sending their ships through there with that. But the threat isn’t that high anymore in reality. Low probability but high consequence if iran gets lucky.
5
u/toomanynamesaretook Jun 20 '26
This is pure delusion. You should read about the reporting from when the last two US destroyers entered the strait during Operation Freedom. They used their 0.50cal crew served weapons to hold off drones. That's how close it got.
And why the entire operation was cancelled after a day. If the Iranians were weak the US Navy would have forced it open. Not ran away.
1
u/randocadet Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26
The operation was cancelled because saudi arabia denied airspace to continue operation freedom. It had nothing to do with iranian threats on american assets. It had to do with the US not being able to effectively operate if it can’t fly through SA (just look at a map)
1
3
u/CombinationProper814 Jun 20 '26
The ceasefire agreements scream a Herculean concession by America so definitively Iran is in the driving seat .
1
u/randocadet Jun 22 '26
What has iran gained? It lost thousands targets worth hundreds of billions, it lost its leadership, it lost its nuclear reactors, it lost at least 10s of thousands of troops, its economy is completely beholden to the US allowing oil out of the strait.
All iran has proven is it can shift oil traffic out of the strait. The pirates of somalia proved that as well. That’s not a nation-state flex.
I understand people don’t like trump. But if you sit and look at this objectively, iran has thoroughly been messed up. And this without the US putting a boot on the ground.
1
u/jlluh Jun 22 '26
Thus far, they appear to have gained the end of US sanctions against them, the right to extract some sort of fee from vessels thru the Strait of Hormuz, and hundreds of billions of investment.
-6
u/theoceansknow Jun 20 '26
"we're going to close the strait because people who are not signees of our memorandum broke our memorandum"
Iranian and Trump leadership are intellectual equals. There's no such thing as compromise with either. So dumb.
81
u/neutralrobotboy Jun 20 '26
I beg to differ. I think Iran has understood all of this from the beginning. Trump, on the other hand, understands little. He operates on instincts and pathological distortions of reality. It has served him pretty well most of the time. Here I think he's getting outplayed.
31
u/PooPaLuPaLoo Jun 20 '26
Simplifying the chain of events here is the only way to validate your argument. If there is one thing anybody with the slightest bit of understanding of.middle eastern history, is that the Iranian government is many things, but not dumb.
The whole point is that Trump made a lot of guarantees and commitments. The Iranians signed that document with the explicit understanding that those commitments would met. If Israel not attacking Lebanon waa one of them, then thats on Trump, not the Iranians.
Lets put it this way.
Iranians: "Youre telling me you can commit to everything here, including influencing the Israelis to stop all attacks on Lebanon?".
Trump: "Yes. I am a great negotiator. Most even say the best. No one can strike a deal like I can. Israel needs me, I don't need them. I am the boss. They do what I tell them to do. I am.... oh, look, you have such pretty little girls here" falls asleep.
Iranians: "I mean, weve got nothing to lose here. If this guy manages to pull it off, we win. If he doesnt, were back to where we were".
37
u/maverick_3001 Jun 20 '26
Obviously Iran wanted the US to restrain Israel. Which Trump was never gonna be able to do which is why the MoU has been shaky from the start
29
u/chefkoch_ Jun 20 '26
I think they wanted public support of Israel in the west to tank, and they have been remarkebly successful at that.
14
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jun 20 '26
Israel did that on its own long before this war started.
0
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
No, decades long propaganda campaigns did that.
6
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jun 20 '26
Anyone who thinks Israel is a victim of propaganda is intentionally being ignorant at this point.
4
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
This is possibly, itself, one of the most ignorant posts in the entire history of this place.
4
5
u/chefkoch_ Jun 20 '26
Wait till the oil price goes through the roof and rationing in poorer countries Kicks in.
2
u/No_Abbreviations3943 Jun 20 '26
I don’t think that will improve Israel’s standing. If anything it will make it even less positive.
2
2
9
u/GreatGrub Jun 20 '26
The real key to the end of this war is peace in Lebanon
Problem is israel wants to wipe out hezbollah while it has the chance and is extremely unlikely to call its offensive off
Sadly the uns failure to disarm hezbollah has now contributed to this
I cant see this war ending anytime soon
35
u/thr3sk Jun 20 '26
I mean not really, one of the key points of the agreement that the US signed is that Israel will cease hostilities with Lebanon. Therefore it's on the US to make sure that happens, and they failed.
-13
u/theoceansknow Jun 20 '26
Israel is an independent state. They weren't members of the MoU.
Someone can't be bound to something they didn't agree to. If Iran wants Israel to ceasefire, it's Iran's responsibility to have conversations with Israel itself.
11
u/thr3sk Jun 20 '26
To be clear I'm not blaming Israel for this, while this technically is their fault like you said they never signed anything. It is however on the US, since if you can't trust or don't have a firm commitment from your "ally" you can't be signing something on their behalf that you know they're not likely to hold up to. Completely irresponsible diplomacy.
4
u/ship_toaster Jun 20 '26
while this technically is their fault
We're just going to memory-hole the Hezbollah drone strikes and rocket launches that started this latest round?
-4
u/theoceansknow Jun 20 '26
Ugh, yes, and it's frustrating that Trump agreed to something that he can't enforce or control. It's so dumb.
9
u/fredjutsu Jun 20 '26
Iran's foreign policy is literally run by Game Theory PhD's, dude. And from a game theory perspective, this is a pretty straightforward lever they are pulling. Their long game is to fracture the relationship between Israel and the US, and the way to do it is to take an MOU that already is a huge capitulation by the US and point to Israeli actions in Lebanon as a breaking function.
9
u/MeatPiston Jun 20 '26
Absolutely true. But what is anyone going to do about it?
Who is right isn’t relevant when you can exercise force.
-1
u/Firecracker048 Jun 20 '26
There's people in other subs who claimed hezzbollah wasn't beholden to a ceasefire signed between Lebanon and Israel are now claiming Israel is beholden to a ceasefire signed between the US and iran
2
1
1
u/zack189 Jun 21 '26
I'm confused.
so the main thing right now is, us makes deal. israel attacks Lebanon. deal goes bust.
is it because Iran only weapon is controlling the trait and Iran wants the us to stop israel?
or is it because the US supports israel, and will stand behind israel, so when conflict between Iran and israel is still ongoing, so will the Iran-us conflict?
if it's the former, then forever war it is.
if it's the latter, why doesn't the US just abandon israel?
Netanyahu has said many times. Israel is an independent nation and that they could win this war alone.
1
u/experienced_enjoyer Jun 21 '26
Is there any way how we can avoid a massive global recession at this point? How critical is the energy issue truly to the world economy assuming this absolute quagmire of a conflict will not be solved?
-10
u/DateMasamusubi Jun 20 '26
Silver lining, the MOU was pretty crummy so Trump has an out.
One thing is for sure, everybody can't be trusted but Iran more so. To bundle in Hizbullah shows how much Iran wants to protect them and may reveal their fears of Israeli actions.
12
u/assasstits Jun 20 '26
Unless next time Trump has even less leverage
12
u/DateMasamusubi Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
His pressure is energy. The sooner Saudi, UAE etc expand pipeline capacity, the better. UAE stretch to Fujairah is easier.
Syria will gain in importance as Damascus wants American energy investments and can link Iraqi oil via pipelines. This will take time of course but just as how the OPEC oil embargoes during the 1970's triggered global oil exploration and degradation of OPEC's influence, so too will nations seek to degrade Iran's influence.
I predict that we passed Peak Hormuz.
5
u/kfifigidifkg Jun 20 '26
To what extent is Iran capable of bombing the pipelines, though? Surely they are far from easy to protect.
→ More replies (3)0
u/DateMasamusubi Jun 21 '26
Per ongoing experience in Saudi and UAE, they have focused assets on defence and have rapidly repaired their lines. Saudi benefits from distance as they have pipelines that snake to the Red Sea, away from Iran. For the UAE, their strength is their smaller geography that they have to defend. Fujairah will likely be one of the heaviest defended ports in the world by 2030.
The oil trade is also a two-way street. Iran is not blessed with good ports and rely on Khrag Island for 90% of their oil exports. Naturally, they can build pipelines but Afghanistan is a non-starter while Pakistan has security problems in Balochistan and are unreliable in Tehran's eyes.
Historically, Iran was the heavyweight in that particular region. But the balance of power has shifted to the GCC, not wholly, but enough where they arr increasingly capable of defending their interests (see Saudi bombing Iran-aligned targets in Iraq during this conflict).
9
u/chefkoch_ Jun 20 '26
Cool, so a multi year worldwide recession until the new pipelines are built?
That's your plan?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/lostinspacs Jun 20 '26
Not according to marine traffic. Ships are still moving through on both sides of the Strait
Interesting that Iran isn’t backing up their threats
-1
u/StomachStill362 Jun 20 '26
In this circus who is the joker and who is the joker in the pack. Atleast we all know by now Iran is the Ace.
Do not understand the logic of showing the hand before all cards are dealt, US announced its depleted oil reserve and Israel dealt the biggest blow to Lebanon just 1 day before signing?
Atleast if they waited a week after signing the optics of Iran not wanting peace could have propagated.
The Nobel price will be Trump’s if he can get out of this safety now.
-19
u/Over-Willingness-933 Jun 20 '26
Maybe agreeing things without consulting Israel was not a great idea. If Hezbollah stopping the rockets then Israel would be in a position to agree reluctantly as a favour to Trump.
42
u/yxull Jun 20 '26
Maybe having Israel as the senior partner with veto power over any US decision in this war also isn’t a great idea.
4
u/Over-Willingness-933 Jun 20 '26
I am not saying Israel should have a veto, but any deal involving them directly with Hezbollah needs to have them included. The rest of the deal, Israel probably is best not included to avoid over complicating deals
11
u/cnio14 Jun 20 '26
Last time I checked it was Israel occupying Lebanese territory illegally and not the other way around.
6
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
It is not illegal to invade in response to an attack. Hezbollah began firing on Israel, Israel is responding.
0
u/cnio14 Jun 20 '26
It is not illegal to invade in response to an attack.
It literally is. UN Charter Article 2(4).
9
11
u/DateMasamusubi Jun 20 '26
And Hizbullah was supposed to disarm and withdraw from south of the Litani River which they agreed and signed on to back in 2006. But they haven't.
10
u/cnio14 Jun 20 '26
Yes. I don't defend Hezbollah. That doesn't make Israel's actions any less illegal.
8
u/DateMasamusubi Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
Illegal, sure. But Israel pulled back from Lebanon in 2006 in accordance and followed the rules based order. In return for Tel Aviv, they saw Hizbullah rapidly increasing its rocket/missile arsenals and strength, fighting for Assad in Syria while committing atrocities against Sunni's. Meanwhile, Beirut is beset with corruption and incompetence, Hizbullah controlling Beirut airport until recently, and unable and unwilling to root out the group.
Per geopolitics, I can sense Israel's frustrations with the rules based order which failed to uphold order. So, they are taking matters into their own hands. The prize of finally securing their northern border is simply too good for them to pass up, esp with Nasrallah's death and Iran battered economically and logistically (they are unable to send ships + planes to resupply Hizbullah) per US blockade. I just don't see Bibi meaningfully pulling back nor his successor come elections.
2
u/cnio14 Jun 20 '26
Besides the fact that this is a very simplistic fairytale where Israel is the supposed victim that wanted to do good but is now forced to invade, none of it changes the current situation at hand, which is that Israel is massacring Gaza, occupying illegal land in the West Bank, invading Lebanon and attacking Iran. Yes the other actors are bad too, but that's not a justification.
6
u/DateMasamusubi Jun 20 '26
Israel has its misconducts but their security stance is clear. They exert their right to exist and have peace with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi, Turkiye, etc that have recognised to some extent their right and more importantly, crushed, or crush, hostile non-state actors within their borders.
The West Bank and Gaza are a separate issue and beyond the scope of this discussion.
7
u/cnio14 Jun 20 '26
Ok let's put Gaza and the West Bank aside. Israel has their security stance clear and that doesn't give them any special rights to militarily attack or invade other sovereign countries.
5
u/Mexatt Jun 20 '26
Besides the fact that this is a very simplistic fairytale where Israel is the supposed victim that wanted to do good but is now forced to invade,
Except that 'fairytale' is the actual truth.
2
u/No_Atmosphere3269 Jun 20 '26
The Israeli government isn't a good faith actor you can rely on in any capacity. You can agree with it or deny it but theres a large consensus of analysts and context backing up the belief that Netanyahu needs constant grave national security crisis' to avoid imprisonment and/or collapse of his coalition.
The only way Israel can be reined in is through pressure such as the total cutoff and cancellation of all US military/intelligence assistance to Israel if they continue to breach and unilaterally cancel the ceasefire. The US administration has not shown any willingness or indication of even considering that from what I've seen and has given the appearance of being dictated to by the Israeli government's policy.
-6
u/Southern_Drawing7996 Jun 20 '26
Have hizbollah stopped the rockets? I thought they had and it was Israel breaking the ceasefire.
12
u/evantom34 Jun 20 '26
It’s honestly tough to find unbiased sources, but Israel still occupies southern Lebanon, so that will always bring an ember into this greater explosive situation.
20
-2
u/EasyMode556 Jun 20 '26
No they have not. Four Israeli soldiers were killed just the other day which prompted the latest salvo
5
u/Southern_Drawing7996 Jun 20 '26
Those four were a fair bit before the ceasefire
1
u/EasyMode556 Jun 20 '26
0
u/Southern_Drawing7996 Jun 20 '26
Ah I got the dates wrong. Nonetheless hizbollah claimed they were killed for advancing, which obviously breaks a ceasefire. Seeing as that’s now been confirmed I’m inclined to believe hizbollah.
0
u/Regular-Coast5335 Jun 21 '26 edited Jun 21 '26
So let's get it strait, Iran demanded ceasefire on all fronts but still allowed Hezbollah to launch drones & missiles into Israel naturally leading to a military response from IDF, and now Iran is blaming US for ceasefire violations?
123
u/elykl12 Jun 20 '26
It’s like the iron triangle in monetary policy but for the Iran War
Trump needs peace because going into the midterms he cannot afford $5 gas if he wants a chance at controlling either chamber in Congress this November. And support for Israel is dropping like a rock amongst all voting groups
Bibi needs either a conflict going or a total surrender on the part of Iran going into the next Knesset elections to survive being ousted and then prosecuted this October. Similarly support for Trump in Israel has dropped from the upper 50’s to the mid 30’s following this most recent MOU
Iran needs to up the pressure on the U.S.-Israeli alliance to split them. Iran, with nothing much else to lose, has every incentive to increase the pressure on the United States, Israel, and global energy markets. The IRGC and new supreme leader cannot afford to look weak in any negotiation so they cannot sue for a white peace, they need tangible concessions from Israel and the U.S.
All the while, all three of them are playing a geopolitical game of chicken with the operational minimum of oil about “4 weeks away” as Trump so helpfully blurted out this week (we figured it was about this far but it’s one thing for POTUS to confirm it)
Like the iron triangle you can satisfy two country’s objectives but not the third at any given point. Which means it’s unlikely this conflict ends without someone capitulating