[bawolff]

> 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]

> 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]

>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?

[adrian_b]

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.

[bawolff]

This is silly, plenty of wars, even vicious ones, have ended in peace without killing everyone on one of the sides.

> This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.

This is obviously not true when the IDF is primarily a conscript army. Conscription is bad for business. It is very difficult to run a business when your employees are being conscripted.

Not to mention how much of a disaster all of this has been for Israel's reputation in the world. Trade, not to mention tourism is based on reputation, and other then the defense industry, Israel is not doing well PR wise at the moment.

[adrian_b]

I have worked for many years in Israel, so what I say is from first hand knowledge, not from hearsay.

You are right that conscription is bad for business.

Nevertheless, in most businesses the employees lost to conscription are a small fraction of the workforce. Much more is gained from the pressure that can be applied on all the other employees, due to the permanent war economy. I pitied my Israeli colleagues, most of whom were very nice people, but who were powerless against the system that exploited them.

You are right about the reputation, but it appears that the power is held by those who do not care about reputation.

I have lived in Israel both before and after Ariel Sharon and his accomplices seized the power. The differences in tourism were huge, because before that you could walk safely anywhere through Israel, while after that you had to avoid carefully any place inhabited by Arabs, unless you had appropriate weapons with you, for any emergency.

[bawolff]

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.