Despite the economic and political pressure he's under, ending the war now would mean an epic defeat for Trump. So, for now the negotiating table remains another theater of battle
Tony, your core argument holds: a negotiated end on Iran's terms would be an admission of strategic failure that Trump can't absorb politically, so the ceasefire is almost certainly tactical breathing space rather than resolution. The Vietnam parallel is apt.
The framing of Iran as the clear winner is probably right in relative terms, but do you perhaps understate the damage Iran has absorbed. Forty days of strikes from the world's most capable air forces will have done real infrastructure damage, and "survived" is not the same as "emerged strong." Iran's leverage through the Strait is real, but it's also a slow-acting weapon that punishes everyone including China, which will likely give Beijing a reason to press Tehran toward settlement.
Israel-as-winner? Yes, Israel got the US in, expanded in Lebanon, and continued in Gaza. But the head of the military warning about troop overextension is significant. Israel now owns a multi-front war with no exit narrative, a population that has taken real damage, and a patron who is publicly being blamed for an expensive disaster. A win but not a good win.
What does Iran actually want beyond the 10-point list. Recognition of Hormuz rent rights sounds like a maximalist opening position. Whether Tehran would trade that for sanctions relief and a formal end to US military operations is the crux. It will be interesting to see how that question evolves.
Howzit Doug! It's been a minute! And yes, I agree on noting that what Iran has absorbed is extremely damaging, and will take many years to rebuild -- I think Iran's survival is the victory, as in winning by not losing in an asymmetrical conflict. And yes, at a terrible cost. I do think though that if they are able to hold onto their control of Hormuz -- remember, they were letting Chinese ships through all along (though China doesn't approach these things in a binary way, and is not served at all by turmoil in the world economy). On Israel, exactly -- but I think it's in a kind of death spiral that could take many years, but it's politically unviable. The region simply cannot tolerate this menace in its midst over the long haul, and the more educated, high-tech end of the population are leaving, not wanting to be in a society ruled by manic Judeo-Nazis (a term coined by Israeli philosopher Yehashayu Leibowitz for the settler movement). So yes, Israel in the long term is cooked... Or something like it, it's going to persist for some time yet as a belligerent state of extremists raining death and misery far and wide...
I think Iran will trade opening the strait at some point because that acknowledges, effectively, that it can close it also. Tolls? Perhaps (smart move to be accepting payment in Trump family crypto!). Sanctions is a tricky one. A large proportion of those are acts of Congress, not executive orders, meaning Trump can't simply lift them (nor could Obama under his nuclear deal, despite promises) -- and Israel as well as all manner of hawkish cranks opposed to a deal get a say in that...
So, as always, too early to tell how this plays out. But as per what I wrote above, I think it will play out over many months of continued conflict, pauses notwithstanding...
Tony, your core argument holds: a negotiated end on Iran's terms would be an admission of strategic failure that Trump can't absorb politically, so the ceasefire is almost certainly tactical breathing space rather than resolution. The Vietnam parallel is apt.
The framing of Iran as the clear winner is probably right in relative terms, but do you perhaps understate the damage Iran has absorbed. Forty days of strikes from the world's most capable air forces will have done real infrastructure damage, and "survived" is not the same as "emerged strong." Iran's leverage through the Strait is real, but it's also a slow-acting weapon that punishes everyone including China, which will likely give Beijing a reason to press Tehran toward settlement.
Israel-as-winner? Yes, Israel got the US in, expanded in Lebanon, and continued in Gaza. But the head of the military warning about troop overextension is significant. Israel now owns a multi-front war with no exit narrative, a population that has taken real damage, and a patron who is publicly being blamed for an expensive disaster. A win but not a good win.
What does Iran actually want beyond the 10-point list. Recognition of Hormuz rent rights sounds like a maximalist opening position. Whether Tehran would trade that for sanctions relief and a formal end to US military operations is the crux. It will be interesting to see how that question evolves.
Howzit Doug! It's been a minute! And yes, I agree on noting that what Iran has absorbed is extremely damaging, and will take many years to rebuild -- I think Iran's survival is the victory, as in winning by not losing in an asymmetrical conflict. And yes, at a terrible cost. I do think though that if they are able to hold onto their control of Hormuz -- remember, they were letting Chinese ships through all along (though China doesn't approach these things in a binary way, and is not served at all by turmoil in the world economy). On Israel, exactly -- but I think it's in a kind of death spiral that could take many years, but it's politically unviable. The region simply cannot tolerate this menace in its midst over the long haul, and the more educated, high-tech end of the population are leaving, not wanting to be in a society ruled by manic Judeo-Nazis (a term coined by Israeli philosopher Yehashayu Leibowitz for the settler movement). So yes, Israel in the long term is cooked... Or something like it, it's going to persist for some time yet as a belligerent state of extremists raining death and misery far and wide...
I think Iran will trade opening the strait at some point because that acknowledges, effectively, that it can close it also. Tolls? Perhaps (smart move to be accepting payment in Trump family crypto!). Sanctions is a tricky one. A large proportion of those are acts of Congress, not executive orders, meaning Trump can't simply lift them (nor could Obama under his nuclear deal, despite promises) -- and Israel as well as all manner of hawkish cranks opposed to a deal get a say in that...
So, as always, too early to tell how this plays out. But as per what I wrote above, I think it will play out over many months of continued conflict, pauses notwithstanding...