Current talks · Liberty Politics Discussion

Current talks

So, I think most of us worried when we heard there would be negotiations instead of continued bombing. I certainly did and I think Armin did as well. Part of this is because the opposition controlled the narrative for well over half a day after the announcement. But now, I think this is probably a good thing.

I will begin by stating my big concern.

I want to see the US and Israel provide support from above when the Iranians come out. Because the regime still has the ability to oppress. And to kill people who come out to protest. Therefore I do not want to see any sort of peace deal that leaves the people completely without support from the US or Israel. We need to both supply them with equipment and also be ready if they come out to support them.

So that is my main concern about a deal. I'm not really worried about the cease fire, but about a bad deal. Or one that is not effective at achieving regime change.

The alternative was to destroy so much infrastructure that Iran essentially could not function on any level, and give the regime a choice between surrender and ruling over nothing.

By contrast, we've now seen that:

America is sticking to its red lines about nuclear and other conditions that Armin has repeatedly said the regime cannot agree to, at least not without totally losing its little remaining support. Witkoff even came out and said the Iranian demands are ridiculous. They should have said this right away though. The thing is that Trump likes to negotiate in secret. Which is fine in private stuff, but is not as good in politics where image matters, because it means he loses control of opinion.

America is stabilizing the straight and will be in a position to keep the straight open when this falls apart in a couple of weeks.

Just by talking, the regime is already fracturing and losing support.

We also get to lower oil prices.

Pakistan managed to make this entire thing into a hilarious clusterfuck by telling both sides different things. Why anyone thought Pakistan would be a good choice for negotiator is beyond me.

Now, someone said regimes don't change by bombing. And while that was part of a very dispirited post essentially saying the US attacks were useless, I think we should say that yeah, that is true, that is why a cease fire had to happen eventually. Either that or the US goes in and occupies with boots on the ground, which could work, but there are reasons why we may not want to do that (both for America and for Iran). We don't have many more targets to hit. As such, did it relaly make sense to keep spending money on attacks?

Now we get to save money on not attacking, while also throwing our enemy into confusion, while also buying time to get ready for an uprising, and time in case we do send ground forces. If the regime agrees to terms, they will lose so much support that they will be in a position where they probably cannot hold power for more than a few more months. If they don't, we will be in a better position to effectively give control to the people.

5 comments