[Aloisius]

Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency (via China's state news agency Xinhua[0]) claims the 10 points are:

1. U.S. commitment to ensure no further acts of aggression

2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz

3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights

4. Lifting of all primary sanctions

5. Lifting of all secondary sanctions

6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran

7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran

8. Payment of damages to Iran for loss in the war

9. Withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region

10. Cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon

Which is much different.

[0] https://english.news.cn/20260408/dd8df6148df94252aaa1d3fbb59...

[smallmancontrov]

The Ayatollah Booth is egg on the US's face regardless, but $2M/ship is about $1/barrel for perspective. Spot price is $95/barrel right now.

[pclmulqdq]

$2M/ship is $1/barrel for VLCCs, but it's a lot more for smaller ships. Practically, nobody will use a ship smaller than a VLCC with the toolbooth.

[smallmancontrov]

VLCCs are already 2/3 the oil traffic, but yeah, rough day to be a small ship with cheap cargo.

[stanislavb]

Israel is already breaking the ceasefire conditions. Ref: "Netanyahu: Ceasefire doesn’t cover Lebanon" https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-cease...

[throwworhtthrow]

Israel violated the 2024 ceasefire over 10,000 times [0], not counting all the ones since Feb. 28. I guess this time they're not satisfied with having only 50 "freebies" a day.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Israel%E2%80%93Lebanon_ce...

[ra]

Have Israel ever respected a ceasefire?

[cooloo]

Ceasefire include removing Hizballa from Lebanon, but facts doesn't matter for terror supporters

[outside1234]

Territorial expansion was probably always Israel's goal of this, with a bonus of weakening a regional rival.

[zorobo]

In the 75 years of their existence it seems like they suck at expansion.

They should take a page from Indonesia’s book for example. Or turkey.

[RA_Fisher]

They’ll probably receive most if not all of Iran’s focus now.

[arbuge]

Perhaps they'll pro-rate it by size.

[insane_dreamer]

Maybe they'll end up with a sliding scale fee based on ship size/capacity

[fatbird]

If Iran's 10 points become the basis of the peace, it ratifies Iran's sovereignty over the strait, at which point they can raise the price. It will be years before alternative routes devalue control of the strait, during which time Iran can siphon a lot of money out of passages taxes.

[taffydavid]

One thing I've not heard much discussion of is alternative routes. In the early days of this war there were discussions i of pipelines but it tapered off pretty fast

[bluGill]

Pipelines are possible, but they take time to build. The pipeline would have to cross several countries (depending on what route is taken - look at a map) which makes it much harder. Will Oman even be interested in this? Saudi Arabia I guess could build a pipeline to the red sea entirely internally, every other country in the region would have to cross someone else.

Still if Iran does charge the $1/barrel of oil they are proposing expect the countries in the region to look into a pipeline. That is a lot of money and a pipeline could potentially be cheaper in the long run.

[jjk166]

The big issue with alternative routes is that they don't really solve the problem. Ports in Oman and Yemen outside the persian gulf are still close enough to Iran to be subject to attack by drones and missiles. Saudi Arabia has invested considerably into pipelines to the Red Sea but Iranian-backed Houthis can strike there. Even if there was a safe port somewhere, the pipelines themselves would be easy targets. There's a reason no alternative route has been pursued over the decades.

The most economical option is to just invest in the military technologies to pass through the Strait. Minesweepers, missile defenses, an appropriate number of escort frigates - an appropriate naval force could most certainly escort ships through. It's just incredibly dumb to start a war with an adversary that has been threatening to close a major waterway for decades immediately after decommissioning your minesweeper fleet and while there are zero frigates in your navy.

[cassepipe]

Pipelines are expensive and slow to build and notoriously vulnerable. Also you would need many I to match even half of the Hormuz throughput

[qtplatypus]

Also Iran can drop the price of the Taxes whenever they want to in order to drive the alternatives into a loss.

[baq]

$2M/ship is $100B/year at pre-war crossing rates.

[selfmodruntime]

For reference: This would almost triple their govts funds each year. One must also not forget that they're able to raise tolls in the future, both for monetary investment but also for negotiation purposes.

[api]

So we spent a ton of money and a bunch of people died to negotiate a much worse situation.

5D chess!

[dmix]

Making outrageous demands is normal in these negotiations. You can just look at what Hamas demanded during the ceasefires. What usually happens is no strong concessions from either side and hostilities just end. The regimes get to survive just in a badly degraded state.

Most importantly Iran can't afford to keep the strait closed to enforce this. If they block shipping their own will be blocked as well - which hasn't yet happened, they were still allowed to ship oil. Iran was already in terrible financial shape before the war and they aren't negotiating from a strong position of power to take those risks.

[ndiddy]

> Most importantly Iran can't afford to keep the strait closed to enforce this. If they block shipping their own will be blocked as well - which hasn't yet happened, they were still allowed to ship oil.

Why do you say this? During the war they set up a checkpoint system so their ships and ships they allowed to pass could still pass through.

[cassepipe]

Is that an argument for them not being to enforce the ayatollbooth or its price to remain reasonnable ?

[cnd78A]

good for them, hopfeully they will be able to better protect themseves from rogue nations that don't respect international laws.

[selfmodruntime]

We‘re still talking about the largest funding nation of terror cells mate

[tracker1]

Who enforces "international laws" anyway?

[umanwizard]

Not quite, since they plan to share the revenue with Oman, or at least that’s what they’re currently claiming.

[enaaem]

Trump cancelled the Iran deal, replaced it with nothing and now Iran has found an infinite money glitch.

[FrustratedMonky]

100B/Year

How are they spinning this, that it is not Reparations?

"10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of reparations"

What is the splitting of hairs here?

[ramblerman]

I think reparations could be spent as they see fit. Reconstruction implies the money is going to exactly that.

But I agree it's a weird nitpick at this stage, as it seems almost impossible to verify once in place

[Detrytus]

No, the point is that instead of the US paying reparations from their own pocket they will allow Iran to tax Gulf countries.

That sentence is just worded badly, I would rewrite it as:

10. Iran to use Hormuz fees for reconstruction instead of demanding reparations from the US.

[umanwizard]

I think you're right, it's a bracketing ambiguity.

Rather than "Iran to use Hormuz fees for (reconstruction instead of reparations)" it's more likely to mean "Iran to use (Hormuz fees for reconstruction) instead of reparations"

[ra]

Nice. I wonder what the costs of reparations would be if the ceasefire were to end the war?

[umanwizard]

I’m 99% sure that if there is a deal where Iran collects a toll, it’s going to involve counting that toll (and/or sanctions relief, and/or unfreezing Iranian assets) as reparations. I would be very surprised if the US or Israel ever agree to direct payments to the Iranian government.

[vkou]

Truly an Art of the Deal - make countries that didn't choose to attack Iran... Pay for reparations.

With friends like Uncle Sam, who needs enemies?

[MulliMulli]

Soon the dubai influencers will flock to Teheran.

[cm2187]

Not convinced it will happen. What would prevent Saudi Arabia from retaliating and introducing a special fee on all ships coming from Iran. It's not like intercepting those massive cargo ships in a small sea is of any difficulty for a well funded military.

[ra]

Geography and missiles? Iran have everything to lose and have been put in a position where they literally have to fight for their existence.

Militarily Iran is a giant and Saudi Arabia is a minnow.

[cm2187]

Saudi Arabia has something like twice as many jet fighters than France. Even if you factor incompetence, it's not hard to hit a cargo ship or an oil production facility in absence of any meaningful air defence.

[boruto]

Does Saudi really want to fight an existential battle alone with Iran over 100B? probably not possible politically too.

[sysguest]

well "want to" isn't "does not have to"

[taffydavid]

Saudi Arabia needs jet fighters to patrol a very large desert and active threats all around. France doesn't have enemies on all sides, and it has nukes and a navy. There's no pressing need for France to have more planes than Saudi Arabia

[lenkite]

Saudi Arabia has FAR more to lose. Paying $1 or its equivalent in Yuan per barrel is utterly nothing for them. Chump Change.

Unfortunately, I do not believe Israel will stand for peace on this terms, so a false-flag sabotage attack will happen as soon as they are freed from their conquest of Lebanon.

[umanwizard]

That would mean Saudi Arabia is starting a war with Iran, which they presumably don’t want to do.

[cassepipe]

Isn't it already happening ?

[sph]

Rather than $2M per ship, it's €1.7M or 13.7M CNY per ship.

[kranke155]

1$/barrel - of barrels they are not producing surely ? That would make them able to levy Saudi Arabian and UAE oil and gas.

[gpm]

> 2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz

> 6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran

> 7. Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran

These seem remarkably outside the USes power to unilaterally agree to.

The first violates international treaties and while I'd be thrilled with the precedent as a Canadian eyeing my countries future revenue streams I doubt the rest of the world's countries are going to be happy to give up freedom of navigation through international waterways.

The second is something that can only be done by the UN security council with a majority vote and none of the permanent members vetoing the termination.

I don't actually know how the IAEA works, but it seems all but certain that that's up to their board of governors not the US.

[ARandomerDude]

If the US wants the IAEA to agree to something like this, especially considering the global economic impact of refusing, I imagine the IAEA could be convinced.

The JCPOA came about when the US pushed for it in 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal

[rcbdev]

> The first violates international treaties

Yeah, but USrAel never ratified UNCLOS. Iran is in the same boat.

[oblio]

It's interesting that these days any treaty that the US hasn't signed is probably a decent one, especially if hundreds of other countries have signed it.

It's usually the US and a bunch of garbage regimes on these lists, I guess there was a message being sent over time.

[bawolff]

Although i think they mostly recognize it as customary international law.

Nonetheless international law isn't really worth the paper its written on. The bigger thing is there are a bunch of other countries dependent on the strait that might have something to say about it.

[isleyaardvark]

Trump could easily agree to it and consider that “their problem”. (I think Iran realize other countries have a say as well.)

[kaveh_h]

It’s unlikely that Iran will get it’s demands at least all of them, and further it’s likely that this ceasefire will break no matter what.

The strait is actually not international waters. It’s shared between Oman and Iran remember (deep water shipping lanes does not exists everywhere in it as well). There was reporting of an agreement on both sides to some sort of shared booth.

Only the US would be the permanent party to vote against it which would be against which would be weird if the agree to the conditions in the first place.

IAEA are stooges, they will do what the US tells them and they’ll come up with some legitimate way of doing it.

[Bender]

3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights

Among many other items this would never be accepted. This momentary cease fire is just regrouping time for everyone involved and that has always been the case for Iran.

[lukan]

It is acceptable, if only enriched for civilian reactors, not weapon grade what they did - and Iran was about to agree to that condition before their leadership was wiped out. If the new leadership will agree, remains to be seen. But I believe china or russia are also not strongly interested in a nuclear armed Iran.

[albatross79]

There no feasible escalation path for the US. Trump has alienated allies and much of his anti war supporters. A forever war quagmire in a country 3x larger than Iraq is unlikely, as is carpet bombing. So what's left? A JCPOA style agreement with a Maga bumper sticker on it, with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb, which is the best option from their pov at this point.

[Bender]

Carpet bombing would be a waste of munitions. Iran to your point is massive and surface level bombing would mostly take out civilians. The civilians have been through enough. Most of Irans military and religious leaders are in missile cities that are 500 meters+ under mountains of rock, the same places they are creating nuclear material. These bunkers are immune to bunker busters and nukes. That will require ground troops and likely a lot of them. How that plays out specifically I have not a clue. I can only hope that they share body-cam footage and that casualties are kept to a minimum. If there is one thing I can give Iran credit for that is building some amazing and very impressive bunkers using US dollars.

with heavy concessions to Iran to prevent them from racing to a bomb

This game has already been played out many times before. Obama unfroze 1.7 billion, Biden gave them upwards of 6 billion. All together the US has given them upwards of 60 billion to pinky promise they wont build nukes. Never pay a bully, ever. They used that extortion money to build bunkers, pay their proxy soldiers to attack Israel and all the gulf states and to work on their bunkers. There will be no more of that. Shame on anyone that falls for those shenanigans again.

[verdverm]

At $2M per ship, assuming an average of 90 ships per day, Iran would bring in roughly $65B a year just in tolls.

[Bender]

Age old story of all choke points of course. I was taught about choke points by a family member that served in WWII and it's funny, thinking back I was in trouble because I could not find the Strait of Hormuz on a world globe that had no writing on it. I mean seriously ... who keeps such a globe just sitting around for such an obscure moment? That lesson stuck with me. It was a strange lesson but it stuck nonetheless.

[verdverm]

Was just reading that this is the first time a waterway choke point (other than canals which are man made) has had a toll. The implications are intriguing for their novelty and unknown second order effects.

Also, the comment about the globe reminds me of a quip from The Daily Show that went something like "... something something War, or how Americans learn geography." You are lucky to have prior generations which provide such inter-generational teaching moments.

[mrguyorama]

The Iran nuclear agreement was absolutely working for the year or so it lasted. International inspectors finally got to see things. Iran did not have a significant nuclear program during Trump's first term when he killed the agreement.

After Trump killed the agreement, what was Iran supposed to do? If the US can just ignore a diplomatic agreement, there's no reason for Iran to follow it. That means diplomacy is basically off the table. So they built a nuclear weapons industry again.

If Iran just wants to kill kill kill, why did it shut down it's chemical weapon industry? Why no dirty bombs? Why no gas attacks? Why is Iran, fighting an actually existential war, pulling it's punches? Why is it not hitting desalination plants like it can? They demonstrated that they have weapons that could hit Europe.

[Bender]

International inspectors finally got to see things.

Or so we are told. I have my doubts that they had access to all the missile cities. We will never know. Nobody will ever know until ICBM's, SRBM's and SRAM's start rolling out of their bunkers and Iran becomes a nuclear power. I believe this has been the goal of their stalling tactics and bullying. Too many nations trust but never really verify. This is how things went wrong with North Korea.

Give tourists paid access to all the bunkers. I want to ride an e-bike through all of them.

[NickC25]

> Never pay a bully, ever. They used that extortion money to build bunkers

Which bully are we talking about here? I'm guessing Donald Trump, who took millions in "donations" to demolish a 3rd of the white house to build a new bunker with a stupid ballroom on top (which will never get built, but the GOP will just shrug when asked where the money went).

We are talking about Donald Trump, right?

[kelipso]

Interesting. I have noticed that news about events in Iran has been markedly different within the US and outside the US for years.

[UncleOxidant]

The differences in the various 10 point lists have been noticed. I wonder if different lists are being produced to make each side look better to their respective populace?

Still, either way lifting sanctions seems like a win for Iran. Also seems like Iran is going to be allowed to charge a transit fee through the SoH. Trump's going to spin this as a win, but it seems like a big loss. Maybe he's just desperate enough to get out of this that he's going to let it slide?

[torginus]

The whole concept of the ceasefire is absurd - it's like the joke that to combat the rise of suicides, the government made them punishable by death.

There's no enforcement mechanism, only big dog, small dog logic. What happens if one party breaks the ceasefire? The other starts shooting?

[bdbdbdb]

Well we've already found out because Israel broke it. With Gaza they've gotten used to very flexible ceasefires where you can still bomb the other side repeatedly and the ceasefire "holds". Iran has shown that this will not work with them, and they closed the strait again

[SpaceNoodled]

Um, yes?

[joe_the_user]

It doesn't seem much different. Both involve guaranteed stop of all hostilities plus payment for what you did plus keep we Strait Of Hormuz. The only difference is how the payment for the attack goes.

[Aloisius]

Withdrawal of US troops from the region and acceptance of uranium enrichment appears nowhere in the other 10 points.

There are permanent US bases in the region.

[iJohnDoe]

Seriously? Those are major differences.

[verdverm]

Aljazeera is sharing roughly the same list

[dismalaf]

Yeah 0% chance the US agrees to this.

[blitzar]

The US doesn't have the cards

[raffraffraff]

Hmm.

"Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights" (enrichment to what degree?)

"Termination of all International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions against Iran" (what does this actually mean, that they tear up previous reports and findings? Ignore undeclared nuclear facilities and unaccounted for uranium?)

I mean, are Iran basically asking that they be allowed build nuclear weapons unchecked? Or is there another way to read this?

[outside1234]

Even that is wildly worse than when we started the war. This is a unmitigated loss.

[JumpCrisscross]

Have the U.S. and Iran agreed the points? Or is this two weeks to hammer them down?

[raincole]

Of course not. It's a framework of a framework of a framework, unilaterally suggested by Iran.

[fernandopj]

Two weeks of open Strait to nail the final version, yes.

I guess gas prices in US will cool down to pre-war price averages and the pressure not to resume aggression will be huge.

[appointment]

Absolutely not. It will takes months to years to rebuild onshore infrastructure, and shipping companies will be very reluctant to send tankers into the Gulf. Negotiations may collapse and hostilities resume at any moment, especially since Israel does not know the meaning of the word ceasefire.

[EmptyCoffeeCup]

No chance. Up like a rocket, down like a feather.

and that's without considering the lost production capacity.

[estearum]

Two weeks of open Strait [1]

[1]: in coordination with the Iranian military [2]

[2]: with preference for Iran's friends[3]

[3]: and fees paid to Iran

[Invictus0]

Either way, it's maximalist aims, not realistic aims. Negotiations will obviously converge closer to US aims since Iran has no leverage.

[chrisjj]

> Iran has no leverage.

Patently false. Else there'd be no ceasefire.

[cosmicgadget]

The president just went from threatening genocide to begging Pakistan to set up a deal that doesn't even have agreed-upon terms. Seems like they have quite a lot of leverage.