re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread

The author tries hard to paint this in the worst possible light. Here's the first thing I noticed from the bolded part.

quote:

---

Point No. 5: “The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz.” Why would opening the door for “administration” of a previously free international waterway even be part this agreement?

---

He left out the first part of point No. 5: "Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. "

If nobody believes that this agreement is carved in stone, or maybe will ever be honored, why are folks so perturbed by the possibility that Iran will conduct dialog about future administration. Things will change over the next 60 days. Assuming that the worst will happen, after 60 days Iran becomes overseer and tollmaster of the SOH, seems like doomcasting and is certainly not guaranteed or even acknowledged in the memorandum. I don't have a link, but Vance did say a few days ago that the long term plan is for passage through the SOH to remain free and unencumbered. The worst that can be said is that there remain future points of contention, which everyone involved and observing already knew.

The article also makes this claim, that the MOU provides

quote:

---

Protection of Hezbollah from Israeli attack. No mention of Iran reining in its terror proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen.

---

Once again, misleading, or more accurately, lying. Point # 1 says this:

"The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war by signing this MOU declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph."

This clearly doesn't protect Hezbollah if they refuse to terminate their activities against Israel. Despite any rhetoric to date, nobody in the administration expects Israel to do nothing while Hezbollah continues their terror war from Lebanon. It even goes further and states that Iran and their allies must ensure the " territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon." The Lebanese government has made it clear that they consider Hezbollah to be an unwelcome force and a threat to their sovereignty. The MOU does not provide "protection for Hezbollah".

and this:

quote:

---

No mechanism to surrender the enriched uranium it has already created.

---

Point #8 clearly addressed this claim:

"resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in Paragraph 7 with the the minimum methodology to be downblending on site under the supervision of the IAEA."

This doesn't rule out removing the material entirely, but why go to the trouble of removing fissile material if it can more easily be degraded on site, and verified as such? Did the author not read or understand that sentence?

I could go on, but it's clear this article by whomever was either written in bad faith or without good comprehension of what the MOU says.