We already attacked Iran twice during "talks," is there any indication that we mean it this time, or are we just going to bomb them again while negotiations are ongoing?
They underestimated Iran's unique mix of capabilities and strategy. It's not that Iran is undefeatable but it seems that the price is going to be far too high both globally and especially regionally for the tiny coalition of Israel and the US to succeed in the long term.
I think it says something that the US paid such a high price to try to produce a "viral military campaign" video of a Uranium heist. Straight out of the cold war. The palatable options must be steadily dwindling.
This coalition is "tiny" insofar NATO & the GCC (well, apart from Bahrain and the UAE) refused to join the attacks, despite Iran's transgressions. The US could wage this war for many years all alone, and force the GCC to watch as the region burned. I guess, Trump's administration isn't willing to go as far as the current Israeli leadership may have hoped or wanted. That said, the war could very well still flare up, if the events from past 2 years following "talks" are any indicator.
I don't disagree, but the expectation from the US Admin was some of their NATO allies would join (like they did in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq). Especially since the Oil spike hurts Europe (where the NATO nations are) the most.
> NATO is a defensive agreement
Turkey was attacked by Iran, though, it is unclear if Turkey would have invoked Art5 even if Iran had kept escalating.
Ceasefires are not in place until they are in place. Before they are in place, war is still ongoing. Discussing a ceasefire does not mean there is a ceasefire currently.
I have a Naive question, "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
> "why aren't the discussions related to public matters be telecasted live like a football match to the whole world? why isn't the public privy to the discussions about its own future?"
It gives the parties more room to manoeuvre with regards to the give and take that is often/usually necessary when it comes to negotiating. If you demand X at one point, but revert so you can get Y, then the absolutists will be outraged (either actually or performatively) that you are being "soft" and "weak", etc.
There are a lot of people who think in zero-sum, winner-take-all ways, which is generally not how the world of foreign relations works. And modern-day outrage machine will create more difficult situations if you give here and take there (ignoring the fact that the other side gives there and takes here in return) even though it may be necessary to get a result (even it it's not perfect).
There is flip side to it. If one party has pre-determined not to negotiate, but is just following the script to show offical reachout and due process, then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
> […] then people don't know the real reason why the talks failed?
A party can always disclose what's going on in negotiations.
This is generally not done as it is often is a violation of trust, but if there's no good faith there in the first place it's hardly a loss. Negotiations can always be broken off with the reason being "the other side is not negotiating in good faith" without particular negotiated-to-day conditions being released.
But my original proposition keeps everyone honest and pragmatic which was the reason for the proposal. I truly believe in transparency as a way to keep everyone honest and not treat other people as childish that they can't understand complex matters.
Because most world leaders are actors. They put on a show to get elected or retain power. They don't want to look weak and want to spin the final outcome to their favor. That can include one side allowing the other to take credit for an idea that wasn't their's.
Compared to the last World War, things are broadcasted quite immediately. The delay is just barely enough to create a narrative that fits the audience.
Because Trump’s war caused massive oil price hike, destabilised energy supply for the whole world, was extremely unpopular even amongst Maga and Iran regime showed that to beat them into submission you would have kill 92 million people making Trump a Hitier-level war criminal and US a global pariah.
It will be very difficult for Trump to start his war again. He is not thinking about US or even his supporters at this point, but his own legacy, but he is too dumb to understand when Israel and his own staff are lying to him.
That’s why Iran has a very strong position to go to the negotiations. You also killed all the more sensible people in the regime, so there’s only hardliners left. There is nothing to win US or Trump, everything to lose. Iran on the other hand only has to sit tight.
This is how a nation stops being a super power and an empire falls.
