Can devils make peace? - Iran peace talks

To answer the title: Yes, the antichrist.

Laodicean60 said:

To answer the title: Yes, the antichrist.

Click to expand...

Except nah, because anyone who denies Jesus is God incarnate is kind of called that by the New Testament.

There is no one definitive Antichrist - basically it's what the New testament calls people who have had time in the church and then denied Jesus is the son of God.

That is I'm disagreeing with the notion of one all powerful Antichrist. I'm Amil, and do not think the book of revelation spells out our future. Instead it is a sermon on suffering to first century Christians as is incredibly obvious from reading the first chapter. How often does John say the time is near it's starting soon etc? He even says that he shares in this tribulation?

I am not denying that non-christians can make great political leaders and represent their constituencies well.

mindlight said:

There has been a ceasefire in the Iran-US/Israel war but the straits of Hormuz remain functionally blocked. Talks are ongoing.

The stakes are high here for all parties involved:

1) Israel and the USA cannot permit a nuclear Iran - that lacks ideological constraints on the use of its weaponry.
2) The world economy is being damaged by high oil prices caused by the blockage of the straits of Hormuz
3) If this regime survives then it looks set on repeat performances of evil in the coming years: terrorism by proxies destabilizing the region, missile attacks on neighbors, butchery of its own people.

So what are the potential ways forward:

1) Continued obliteration of Iranian military and civilian infrastructure until absolute surrender
2) Some kind of compromise that opens the straits but leaves the regime in tact.
3) Just stop the war now - regard it as a done deal and walk away. Iran would then charge tolls on traffic through the straits and the oil price would most likely remain high.

There are also questions of the scope of a deal and what should be considered a successful outcome and where are the red lines here?

1) Should it be a comprehensive cessation of any expression of Iranian regime ideology in the region?
2) Should the focus be on the strait of Hormuz and getting the oil flowing again?
3) Should the focus be merely on the cessation of all immediate hostilities?

Click to expand...

It's simple.

America created this mess when they overthrew the Iranian democracy.

America then created the current mess when they attacked after already 'obliterating' their nuclear program.

America should fix this mess.

They should send in 100,000 troops and overthrow the regime for good!

( Apologies for anything else in this post - I'm checking if my browser has been hacked )

eclipsenow said:

It's simple.

America created this mess when they overthrew the Iranian democracy.

America then created the current mess when they attacked after already 'obliterating' their nuclear program.

America should fix this mess.

They should send in 100,000 troops and overthrow the regime for good!

( Apologies for anything else in this post - I'm checking if my browser has been hacked )

Click to expand...

I would support that if I thought it would work. First, the currnt Iran regime would do an enormous amount of damage to the world economy in going down, if it did go down. Second, we have not been very successful in the past in replacing governments and ending up with good results. I dom't see why this would be better. Third, it would take a lot more than 100,000 troops.

I'm finding it hard to get what readers here would consider a neutral estimate of troops need to control Iran. This from Cato estimates 1.6M https://www.cato.org/commentary/ground-war-iran-would-be-hell-escalation-gift-americas-enemies. I've seen other estimates not quite as large, but still on the order of 1M. It would take most of the US military, and might require a draft. This whole thing is detracting from the real long-term threat of China, and an invasion would be worse.

I think Trump is envisioning something smaller, like Kharg Island. I'm not a sufficient miltiary expert to comment on how hard that would be, but it doesn't sounnd like a war-ending thing.

eclipsenow said:

Except nah, because anyone who denies Jesus is God incarnate is kind of called that by the New Testament.

Sorry to all my unchurched friends here - I'm not calling you an amoral global tyrant in the making. It's a biblical description for those who do not hold Jesus to be who he claims to be - minus all the American Hollywood baggage applied so thick in modern church culture.

Click to expand...

So, non-believers do not know how to make peace? I was talking about the one who makes a 7-year peace deal with Israel in the future. I am sorry for my brother, who has a low opinion of those who do not believe. Anyone can make peace if they so desire, but with Iran, they definitely hold a grudge after all these years.

If all the countries held a grudge for what America did in the past, this world would have ended long ago.

hedrick said:

I'm finding it hard to get what readers here would consider a neutral estimate of troops need to control Iran.

Click to expand...

Iran is easy to defend and hard to attack. I'm not good with our troops in Iran, and as you said, it will take a lot. I believe this blockade is a good idea. Eventually, China and others will be in Iran's ear to sign a deal. I know one thing, talking about (30 years) doesn't work, and this is the last resort.

hedrick said:

I would support that if I thought it would work. First, the currnt Iran regime would do an enormous amount of damage to the world economy in going down, if it did go down. Second, we have not been very successful in the past in replacing governments and ending up with good results. I dom't see why this would be better. Third, it would take a lot more than 100,000 troops

Click to expand...

Wow - I'll have to read those articles later. I thought the Iranian people would rise up if America where to put boots on the ground?

Laodicean60 said:

So, non-believers do not know how to make peace?

Click to expand...

Apologies as my post was open to that charge. That was poor writing on my part and very unclear. I have edited that post significantly.

eclipsenow said:

Wow - I'll have to read those articles later. I thought the Iranian people would rise up if America where to put boots on the ground?

Click to expand...

It's hard to know these days when posts are real and when they're sarcastic. Since it appears Trump actually thought what you say, I'm going to respond. Yes, many Iranians disliked what their government was doing. That doesn't mean that want to US to conquer Iran. If we hadn't attacked Iran, the Iranian government would have had to deal with the discontent of its people. It's hard to know just what would have happened when. But whatever it is, this war has delayed that accounting, possibly by a fairly long time.

It's hard to know what the long-term effects of the war will be, but in the short run, it's creating a lot more repression of groups that had problems with the regime. Iran escalates crackdown on dissent as arrests, executions and threats surge, observers say - Everett Post Likely it has, at least in the short run, caused a "rally round the flag" effect. I'm sure opposition will eventually recover once the war ends. But it certainly has not caused the people to rise up and throw out the government. And it's likely that an invasion by the US, even if it wre possible, would do so.

There was certainly some positive reaction initially to bombing, on the part of dissidents. https://www.npr.org/2026/02/28/nx-s1-5730337/how-some-iranians-reacted-to-attacks-on-their-country But for the moment it's delaying their efforts. If Iran comes out of the war looking like a winner (which seems likely) it may make the regime bolder and stronger.

The analysis I've been hearing is that Iran is really run by the revolutionary guard. Yes, clerics are making ruling oppressing peope. But the real power is the Guard. It has been preparing for this kind of war for a long time. One story says they have 4 levels of backup in case someone is killed, down to the level of village mayors. The Guard is widely enough disbursed that they can't be decapitated.

eclipsenow said:

Except nah, because anyone who denies Jesus is God incarnate is kind of called that by the New Testament.

There is no one definitive Antichrist - basically it's what the New testament calls people who have had time in the church and then denied Jesus is the son of God.

That is I'm disagreeing with the notion of one all powerful Antichrist. I'm Amil, and do not think the book of revelation spells out our future. Instead it is a sermon on suffering to first century Christians as is incredibly obvious from reading the first chapter. How often does John say the time is near it's starting soon etc? He even says that he shares in this tribulation?

I am not denying that non-christians can make great political leaders and represent their constituencies well.

Click to expand...

.

hedrick said:

That doesn't mean that want to US to conquer Iran.

Click to expand...

Trump didn't go in there for the people; we did it for ourselves. If you feel okay with Iran having a nuclear weapon, please tell me why.

It's pretty clear what the risks are if war resumes. We can kill a lot of people in Iran, but we won't defeat it in the sense of making it surrender. I've seen headlines on youtube saying "Tel Aviv destroyed; millions fleeing." But in fact, Israel is in the same position. The weapons Iran is using can do a lot of damage but not in any sense defeat Israel.

The real risk is to the Gulf States. Iran's missles can destroy desalination plants, making Ryiad basically uninhabitable. And they can destroy oil infrastructure. So far Iran has been moderate in their responses. If we seriously try to return them to the stone age, it is likely that they will do the same to the gulf states, creating a world-wide depression.

I assume that's why Trump has so far backed away from further escalation. I hope he'll continue doing so, and that eventually the war will end, or at least become some kind of cold war. However it will likely leave Iran in charge of the Straits, either actually or as a continuing threat if we do anything further, and there's a reasonable chance we won't come back to our bases in the region.

Laodicean60 said:

Trump didn't go in there for the people; we did it for ourselves. If you feel okay with Iran having a nuclear weapon, please tell me why.

Click to expand...

We killed the guy who was most strongly opposed to Iran building a nuclear bomb. I would definitely like Iran not to have a nuclear program. I think Iran will agree to some limitations now, if the US accepts a bunch of other things. But I doubt they will actually stop programs that leave them close to a bomb. They're building a new facility that is far enough under a mountain that we can't take it out. They still have the scientists and engineers, and the basic technology to do it. We can't undo that.

But this war was never primarily about Iran's nuclear program. That was just one of the constantly shifting justifications. We could almost certainly have gotten an agreement on nuclear enrichment without the war if we were willing to give up sanctions. After all, they agreed with Obama. Maybe Trump could haVe gotten a stricter agreement, maybe not. But there's no reason to think the war changes what we'll get. After all, it turns out that control of the Strait is about as effective as having a nuke.

hedrick said:

We killed the guy who was most strongly opposed to Iran building a nuclear bomb. I would definitely like Iran not to have a nuclear program. I think Iran will agree to some limitations now, if the US accepts a bunch of other things. But I doubt they will actually stop programs that leave them close to a bomb. They're building a new facility that is far enough under a mountain that we can't take it out. They still have the scientists and engineers, and the basic technology to do it. We can't undo that.

But this war was never primarily about Iran's nuclear program. That was just one of the constantly shifting justifications.

Click to expand...

As I. There is a reason why America's policy has been against a nuclear Iran. I learned that it takes a few weeks to turn 60% to 90% (weapons grade), and they have a lot. I don't think we'll end till they agree. I believe that of all the countries that have a nuclear program, Iran will use it because of the hate for Israel and religion. Even NK understands that when the button is pushed, it's game over, our mutual destruction is at hand.

I don't see any other way after 25 years of talk.

hedrick said:

The analysis I've been hearing is that Iran is really run by the revolutionary guard. Yes, clerics are making ruling oppressing peope. But the real power is the Guard. It has been preparing for this kind of war for a long time. One story says they have 4 levels of backup in case someone is killed, down to the level of village mayors. The Guard is widely enough disbursed that they can't be decapitated.

Click to expand...

Exactly! There are 125,000 people in the IRG. It's like a giant pyramid. It has its own corporations, army navy and air force.

Trump says he's achieved regime change by destroying the top of the pyramid, but every block that gets destroyed just means that the lower levels move up to replace the top

Laodicean60 said:

As I. There is a reason why America's policy has been against a nuclear Iran. I learned that it takes a few weeks to turn 60% to 90% (weapons grade), and they have a lot. I don't think we'll end till they agree. I believe that of all the countries that have a nuclear program, Iran will use it because of the hate for Israel and religion. Even NK understands that when the button is pushed, it's game over, our mutual destruction is at hand.

I don't see any other way after 25 years of talk.

Click to expand...

Maybe. Tulsi Gabbard testified that the intelligence community didn't think Iran was going for a nuclear bomb. As far as I can tell it's true that they could get the uranium quickly. But there are other parts of a bomb, and you also need a delivery vehicle. They don't seem to havebeen going for that. I'd guess they could get the technology from one of their allies, but I've often wondered if it wouldn't be easier just to buy a fully built bomb from NK.

As I've noted before, I believe Iran will agree not to enrich beyond what is needed for power and medical uses for a period of time. But it may not be as long as Trump would like. If I were in Iran's position, given the nations around them that have it (Pakistan, Israel) I wouldn't want to make any permanent commitments. Who knnow what things will look like in 5 to 10 years.

Tulsi Gabbard about a year ago. (I think she may have changed her tone recently, to match Trump). DNI Gabbard Opening Statement as Delivered to the HPSCI on the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community | Office of the Director of National Intelligence

"Iran continues to seek to expand its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict. Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. They've shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on US forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data. The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. We continue to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program. In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons. Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming, and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorists, actors, which it refers to as its “Axis of Resistance.” Although weakened, this collection of actors still presents a wide range of threats including to Israel's population, U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Syria, as well as U.S. and international military and commercial shipping and transit."

As far as anyone can tell, Iran made no attempt to access the nuclear material that was buried after the US bombing. But perhaps they're waiting to move it to Pickaxe Mountain when it's finished.

There is still reason for concern. With the replacement of Khomeini, who did not want to develop nuclear weapons, with hard-line Guard leaders, the situation may now have changed. In response to the bombing of thei nuclear sites, they are building a facility at Pickaxe Mountain that's buried deeply enough that we won't be able to take it out. Of course with an appropriate agreement, inspectors could look at it, but I wouldn't think it would be hard to have tunnels that they wouldn't find.

I would like to see as strict an agreement as we can get, but it's not going to be a permanent prohibition of all nuclear enrichment. Our bargaining position simply isn't strong enough to force that. We can do them a lot of damage, but almost certainly not enough to change the regime, and they can do equally serious damage to the gulf states, and by implication the world economy. This doesn't put us in a position to demand the kind of terms that Trump wants (and in fact, I would like if it were possible). Quite likely the terms we'll end up with won't be any tighter than if we hadn't started a war with them, and they may actually be worse, but most commentators seem to think some kind of agreement about nuclear enrichment will likely be part of any deal to end the war.

hedrick said:

If I were in Iran's position, given the nations around them that have it (Pakistan, Israel) I wouldn't want to make any permanent commitments. Who knnow what things will look like in 5 to 10 years.

Click to expand...

If only Iran didn't have a religious militant government, then I'd agree. Israel is a gonner if Iran gets a nuke, judging from their terror activity in the past.

hedrick said:

In response to the bombing of thei nuclear sites, they are building a facility at Pickaxe Mountain that's buried deeply enough that we won't be able to take it out.

Click to expand...

I think we can, but maybe it was a low-priority target since it's not operational. Or maybe it's next on the list if Iran doesn't succumb to the economic pressure.

hedrick said:

Tulsi Gabbard

Click to expand...

I'd have to ask Tulsi, for what reason are they allowed to enrich to 60% near weapons-grade uranium, Practice? It doesn't make common sense.