re: Vice President says U.S. expects Strait of Hormuz to be open ‘toll free’ long term

quote:

---

They demonstrated disruption. Not control. Definitely not absolute control (sorry wes). Not victory. Not strength.

quote:
I think there’s a legitimate case that they are stronger.


Then make it.

Show how losing personnel, taking military damage, inviting international pressure, and still being forced into negotiations made them stronger.

Because right now your entire argument is basically: “they survived and annoyed us.” Congratulations to them, I guess. Very inspiring stuff.


Didn’t care to address my point about you and the media would treat this conflict differently if this was an administration you voted for? guess not.

---

Nobody said Iran came out of this with a shinier navy, more air defenses, and a WWE “we won the war” belt.

The argument is about leverage.

“Disruption, not control” is not the rebuttal you think it is. Disruption of the Strait of Hormuz is control-adjacent enough to matter because global markets do not wait around for your semantic comfort. If Iran can make oil prices, shipping insurance, Asian energy markets, and U.S. domestic politics start screaming by threatening one chokepoint, that is leverage.

Not absolute control. Not victory. Not strength in the parade-ground sense.

Leverage.

And leverage is exactly why we negotiated.

If Iran was truly beaten, if its military was eliminated, if its nuclear program was gone, if its bargaining power was destroyed, then there would be nothing to negotiate. You do not negotiate sanctions relief, frozen assets, ceasefire terms, and reconstruction/investment frameworks with a corpse. You dictate terms to a corpse.

That did not happen.

Iran lost men and hardware. No argument. But it also demonstrated that the U.S. could punish it militarily and still not force surrender, still not remove the regime, still not eliminate the nuclear issue, still not neutralize the proxy problem, and still not keep Hormuz out of the negotiation.

That is the part you're trying to step around.

Before the war, Hormuz was open as a practical matter. After the war, Hormuz is open conditionally, because Iran successfully made it part of the price of ending the crisis. That is not “they survived and annoyed us.” That is “they identified the pressure point and proved we cared enough about it to bargain.”

So no, Iran is not “stronger” because losing assets is magical. They are stronger in the specific strategic sense that they proved their most valuable weapon is not a nuke, a destroyer, or some dead general. It is the ability to make the global economy panic through disruption of Hormuz.

You can call that annoying if you want. States refer to it as leverage.

And yes, if this exact sequence had happened under Obama or Biden, the same people doing touchdown dances right now would be calling it a humiliating failure: war, dead Americans or allies, depleted munitions, spooked markets, exposed capabilities, no regime change, no permanent nuclear settlement, and then negotiations with the same regime.

But because Trump is attached to it, suddenly a bloody round trip back to diplomacy makes him Sun Tzu with a spray tan to you.

Laughable..

quote:

---

But because Trump is attached to it, suddenly a bloody round trip back to diplomacy makes him Sun Tzu with a spray tan to you.

---

for the most part I agree with you post, or can at least grasp your viewpoint, but this where you lose me. I’ve been pretty critical of Trump on this topic and many others in recent months. Your anger is misplaced, pal.

quote:

---

In one breath you said:

---

Bro are you drunk?

quote:

---

Now you’re claiming I’m unfairly connecting those statements to other American conflicts. I’m not connecting them. You did.

---

There’s only one person who has brought up non-iranian conflicts in this thread. You.

quote:

---

You asked what was achieved. I listed several things. Your response was essentially, “None of that matters because the IRGC is still in power.” That’s your argument. Own it.

---

Yes I’ve said exactly that like 5 times. Your list of achievements is not meaningfully different than the status quo. We killed a bunch of dudes who have been replaced by dudes who think and will act in the same way as the dudes we killed. Who cares?

quote:

---

You just don’t seem to like hearing it repeated back to you.

---

????

quote:

---

Ahh an OT Moderate.

---

no, nothing like an OT Moderate.

Iran Says Strait of Hormuz Won’t Have ‘Tolls’ but It Will Have ‘Fees’

So Iran is going to get $300 billion AND make money of ships going through the straight of Hormuz??

People will argue whether this "deal" is a win or a loss, mainly viewed through their own lens. I put deal in quotes because, as of now, it is still basically a memorandum of understanding; even when signed in Switzerland, parts remain that are still to be negotiated over 60 days.

I see it functionally remarkably similar to the JCPOA each having advantages and disadvantages that could be argued. The one thing that is hard to argue is that this deal costs the US taxpayers many multiples of what the JCPOA cost.

quote:

---

Sure

Before:
"Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon"
Strait open
Terrorists in charge

After:
"Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon"
Strait open
Different terrorists in charge
Iran +$300 billion

---

it's 5D chess. This military operation destroyed China

Poli board