FormerFlash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Terror attacks make them the bad guy, right now Trump and Bibi are the bad guys. Iran the victim.

---

Yeah, no one with a brain speaking honestly actually believes this.

---

Look around the world, outside of your little sphere. In their situation, the worst thing they could do is go terror cell.

U.S. is prepared to invade Iran, per POTUS.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) April 21, 2026

FormerFlash said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Terror attacks make them the bad guy, right now Trump and Bibi are the bad guys. Iran the victim.

---

Yeah, no one with a brain speaking honestly actually believes this.

---

Every one not in the cult believes this.

I think this might be the 10th time we've won this one...

Trump: We have totally won the war with Iran.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 21, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

I think this might be the 10th time we've won this one...

Trump: We have totally won the war with Iran.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 21, 2026

---

VICTORY!

- UF

D!!

BREAKING: Iran has told mediators that they will not send a delegation for peace talks with the US until the US "blockade" of the Strait of Hormuz is lifted, per WSJ.

When President Trump was asked about the conflict today, he responded, "I have all the time in the world."

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) April 21, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

I think this might be the 10th time we've won this one...

Trump: We have totally won the war with Iran.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) April 21, 2026

---

It would make sense that after Bush's carrier landing "victory" sign debacle that presidents and their staff would know better than to declare things, especially wars, finished, won, done, etc. before they actually are and the ink on treaties is dry.

boognish_bear said:

---

NEW: Trump administration is considering financial bailout for the United Arab Emirates over economic losses sustained from US war with Iran. -WSJ

— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) April 21, 2026

---

Necessary if the alternative is the death of the petrodollar. You gotta spend money to make money.

The fact that they even suggested it points to a weakening of our status. They aren't afraid of being Libyaed, and they know we cannot afford to misstep after the tariff debacle.

Clarity:

If you actually cheer for Iran or hope they win, you are the bad guy here.

“So that was just Iranian propaganda?”

“Yes, absolutely.”@TreyYingst reports there’s no evidence any vessels left Iranian ports or moved through the Strait of Hormuz — undercutting the false narrative about 26 Iranian ships slipping past a U.S. blockade. | @foxandfriends pic.twitter.com/jnUB9yoSFK

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 21, 2026

>>
Neighboring country: 'We used our oil wealth to build an economic powerhouse,' Iran used theirs for evil
Story by Derek VanBuskirk

A United Arab Emirates (UAE) minister said Sunday that the country has become a primary target of Iran's attacks due to its commitment to tolerance and economic growth.

UAE Minister of State for International Cooperation Reem Al Hashimy told ABC's "This Week" host Jonathan Karl that, unlike Iran, which uses its oil wealth to fund terrorist groups, the UAE has used its resources to build a "model of prosperity and tolerance."

"We used our oil wealth to build an economic powerhouse. They used their wealth for nuclear programs that are nefarious, for missiles, drones, proxies, etc.," Hashimy said. "So whereas we tried to become, and have become, an international, global, responsible player, they are a pariah state."

Karl began the interview, describing how the UAE was struck 2,819 times by Iranian missiles and drones since the end of February, more than any other nation, including Israel, which has been coordinating operations with the U.S.

"It's very clear that they've chosen to go down this path because we are everything that they're not," Hashimy said, pointing to the UAE's tolerance of nationalities and religions.

However, the UAE's public-facing claims of tolerance have faced pushback. Evidence compiled by the United Nations, experts, and other reports alleges that the UAE has been secretly funding Sudan's rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in their bloody civil war against the Sudanese Armed Forces, The Guardian reported.
<<

boognish_bear said:

---

NEW: Trump administration is considering financial bailout for the United Arab Emirates over economic losses sustained from US war with Iran. -WSJ

— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) April 21, 2026

---

AMERICA FIRST

Trump Blinks Again, Unilaterally Extends Iran Ceasefire After Pakistan Talks Fail To Launch

Markets are closed so time to make some more moves that ensure only insiders profit.

• Trump unilaterally extends ceasefire after Vance calls off trip to Pakistan - says Iranian port blockade to remain in place. Tasnim says Iran's 'final decision' is to not attend talks.
• Trump warns: 'Expect...bombs' & urges Tehran "release women" said to be on death row.
• Overnight, US forces conducted a right-of-visit, maritime interdiction and boarding of the stateless sanctioned M/T Tifani in Indo-Pac region: CENTCOM
• As just 12 ships have gone through Hormuz Strait in last 24 hours, Iran claims one of its own made it past the US naval blockade. CENTOM says 28 turned around.
• Trump on Truth Social early Tuesday: Iran has Violated the Cease Fire numerous times!

Another genius, I see.


So if you were running negotiations with Iran, assuming you did not extend them, what would you do instead?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Another genius, I see.


So if you were running negotiations with Iran, assuming you did not extend them, what would you do instead?

---

Well, I would have started by not bombing them. I also wouldn't have taken Netanyahu's call during the negotiations. We are the hegemon, Israel is the client state. We negotiate a settlement acceptable to US, and Israel agrees to it. If they don't like it, we strip them of the equiment to have a functioning Iron Dome and let them fight Iran on their own.

There are basically two plans that have been floated. Iran's ten point plan, which contains their maximalist demands and our twelve point plan which contains our maximalist demands.

A successful negotiation would land somewhere in between those two plans. The previous negotiation was undertaken with those assumptions, even based on the Trump tweets. Instead, Vance showed up and basically told the Iranians "its our 12 point plan or nothing" after speaking to Netanyahu mid-negotiation. That ended things right there.

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Another genius, I see.


So if you were running negotiations with Iran, assuming you did not extend them, what would you do instead?

---

Well, I would have started by not bombing them. I also wouldn't have taken Netanyahu's call during the negotiations. We are the hegemon, Israel is the client state. We negotiate a settlement acceptable to US, and Israel agrees to it. If they don't like it, we strip them of the equiment to have a functioning Iron Dome and let them fight Iran on their own.

There are basically two plans that have been floated. Iran's ten point plan, which contains their maximalist demands and our twelve point plan which contains our maximalist demands.

A successful negotiation would land somewhere in between those two plans. The previous negotiation was undertaken with those assumptions, even based on the Trump tweets. Instead, Vance showed up and basically told the Iranians "its our 12 point plan or nothing" after speaking to Netanyahu mid-negotiation. That ended things right there.

---

A "successful negotiation" is one that results in the near -term collapse of the Islamic state in Iran.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

---

So, no real answer from ATL.

Just spluttering.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Another genius, I see.


So if you were running negotiations with Iran, assuming you did not extend them, what would you do instead?

---

Well, I would have started by not bombing them. I also wouldn't have taken Netanyahu's call during the negotiations. We are the hegemon, Israel is the client state. We negotiate a settlement acceptable to US, and Israel agrees to it. If they don't like it, we strip them of the equiment to have a functioning Iron Dome and let them fight Iran on their own.

There are basically two plans that have been floated. Iran's ten point plan, which contains their maximalist demands and our twelve point plan which contains our maximalist demands.

A successful negotiation would land somewhere in between those two plans. The previous negotiation was undertaken with those assumptions, even based on the Trump tweets. Instead, Vance showed up and basically told the Iranians "its our 12 point plan or nothing" after speaking to Netanyahu mid-negotiation. That ended things right there.

---

A "successful negotiation" is one that results in the near -term collapse of the Islamic state in Iran.

---

How do you collapse an "Islamic state"? Particularly one that has a mosaic defense structure.

This is a good move—it buys us time. It’s essential that we use it wisely.

Acknowledge that under current conditions, there are no military solutions and a true settlement is unlikely.

Follow the Reagan-in-’84 model: pull our forces out of the region, let our Gulf allies… https://t.co/QsVrkR0yDC

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) April 21, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

---

So, no real answer from ATL.

Just spluttering.

---

Answers you don't like isn't the same as not answering.

I agree. Establish a no fly zone and patrol the Straits ensuring Freedom of Navigation and free trade. Enlist the help of NATO, Arabs, Asia and even Chinese. Those are principles we can defend. Hell, even go to the UN after establishing Freedom of Navigation.

We not only have the mess with Iran, but we now have a SERIOUS credibility issue.

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

---

So, no real answer from ATL.

Just spluttering.

---

Answers you don't like isn't the same as not answering.

---

You did not answer. You channeled a CNN spin then threw out a verbal vomit.

If we just abandon Iran, you know full well that's running away by any standard.

Do you want to try for a response in substance, or do you want to just keep trying out for SNL?

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

---

So, no real answer from ATL.

Just spluttering.

---

Answers you don't like isn't the same as not answering.

---

You did not answer. You channeled a CNN spin then threw out a verbal vomit.

If we just abandon Iran, you know full well that's running away by any standard.

Do you want to try for a response in substance, or do you want to just keep trying out for SNL?

---

Do you want the best outcome for the United States, or do you want to avoid looking like we ran away?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

---

So, no real answer from ATL.

Just spluttering.

---

Answers you don't like isn't the same as not answering.

---

You did not answer. You channeled a CNN spin then threw out a verbal vomit.

If we just abandon Iran, you know full well that's running away by any standard.

Do you want to try for a response in substance, or do you want to just keep trying out for SNL?

---

Do you want the best outcome for the United States, or do you want to avoid looking like we ran away?

---

I was clear.

We are extending the ceasefire, in the interest of settling this conflict.

If you don't want to extend the ceasefire, what is your course of action?

Put down the insult-Trump bong and try to be an adult here, Sam.

FLBear5630 said:

---

I agree. Establish a no fly zone and patrol the Straits ensuring Freedom of Navigation and free trade. Enlist the help of NATO, Arabs, Asia and even Chinese. Those are principles we can defend. Hell, even go to the UN after establishing Freedom of Navigation.

We not only have the mess with Iran, but we now have a SERIOUS credibility issue.

---

Don't forget we can enlist the help of the Board of Peace

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Another genius, I see.


So if you were running negotiations with Iran, assuming you did not extend them, what would you do instead?

---

Well, I would have started by not bombing them. I also wouldn't have taken Netanyahu's call during the negotiations. We are the hegemon, Israel is the client state. We negotiate a settlement acceptable to US, and Israel agrees to it. If they don't like it, we strip them of the equiment to have a functioning Iron Dome and let them fight Iran on their own.

There are basically two plans that have been floated. Iran's ten point plan, which contains their maximalist demands and our twelve point plan which contains our maximalist demands.

A successful negotiation would land somewhere in between those two plans. The previous negotiation was undertaken with those assumptions, even based on the Trump tweets. Instead, Vance showed up and basically told the Iranians "its our 12 point plan or nothing" after speaking to Netanyahu mid-negotiation. That ended things right there.

---

A "successful negotiation" is one that results in the near -term collapse of the Islamic state in Iran.

---

How do you collapse an "Islamic state"? Particularly one that has a mosaic defense structure.

---

There are a whole lot of unknowns out there, I don't have access to the data needed to say with a high degree of certainty what precisely might work, but there are several elements that come to mind. Part of the answer depends in part in how strong you can make the blockade against their economy (when soldiers stop getting paid, they tend to revolt, and I doubt if Iran has a George Washington to stop them). A second part of the answer depends on the degree to which you can continually chop off the next heads of the hydra until you get some folks who have had enough. There is a limited number of people in Iran who are willing or able to be in leadership. A third part of the answer would have to do with how uncomfortable you can make it for the government by breaking down more significant parts of Irans energy production, transmission, and transportation structure. This would be "diplomacy by other means." A fourth part of the answer involves getting different elements of the Iranian power structure to be in competition with each other. Eventually, the mosaic starts to eat itself.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

---

So, no real answer from ATL.

Just spluttering.

---

Answers you don't like isn't the same as not answering.

---

You did not answer. You channeled a CNN spin then threw out a verbal vomit.

If we just abandon Iran, you know full well that's running away by any standard.

Do you want to try for a response in substance, or do you want to just keep trying out for SNL?

---

Do you want the best outcome for the United States, or do you want to avoid looking like we ran away?

---

The best outcome for the United States and for our allies and friends is an end to the Islamic Republic.

boognish_bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I agree. Establish a no fly zone and patrol the Straits ensuring Freedom of Navigation and free trade. Enlist the help of NATO, Arabs, Asia and even Chinese. Those are principles we can defend. Hell, even go to the UN after establishing Freedom of Navigation.

We not only have the mess with Iran, but we now have a SERIOUS credibility issue.

---

Don't forget we can enlist the help of the Board of Peace

---

I thought Jared was already involved. Maybe we send ober Rudi and Donald Jr to calm things down....

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Iran's 10-point plan v Trump's 15-point plan: What each side is asking for

Article that compares the two.

Here's my framework.

(1) Cessation of all American hostilities against Iran, with an agreement not to attack again unless the US, our international assets, or our military/countries with which we have mutual defense pacts are attacked by Iran or Iranian proxies.

(2) Withdrawal of all US forces from the middle east unless an entity like ISIS rises, at which point we would coordinate a military response with the regions Islamic states.

(3) Recognition of Iran's right to nuclear enrichment for civilian purposes: This is capped at 20%. All enriched uranium above 20% must be handed over under an IAEA inspection/monitoring regime.

(4) A permanent commitment from Iran to never develop nuclear weapons.

(5) Limits on Tehran's ballistic missile program, including reportedly restrictions on both the range and number of missiles Iran can possess.

(6) Cessation of support to militant groups in the region including Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas.

(7) Sanctions relief for Iran and Russia which would allow oil from both countries to flood international markets and be sold at market prices. Putin is at the table, not Netanyahu. Aid to and intelligence sharing with Ukraine is cut. The Russians now have an incentive to pressure Iran to sign. Yes, this would result in oil from both countries being refined and sold in the US. $1.50 a gallon unleaded anyone? $2.75 a gallon diesel? The cheap energy economic boom that would result would ensure re-election of a GOP majority this fall.

(8) The Hormuz shipping channel becomes an international waterway ensuring a free flow of marine traffic and they don't close it.

(9) If Israel continues to attack Iran after this agreement is signed, we end all military aid to Israel.

A little bit for them, a little bit for us. In the long term, a lot for us.

This is what an America first policy - an off ramp that actually helps Americans - looks like.

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Iran's 10-point plan v Trump's 15-point plan: What each side is asking for

Article that compares the two.

Here's my framework.

(1) Cessation of all American hostilities against Iran, with an agreement not to attack again unless the US, our international assets, or our military/countries with which we have mutual defense pacts are attacked by Iran or Iranian proxies.

(2) Withdrawal of all US forces from the middle east unless an entity like ISIS rises, at which point we would coordinate a military response with the regions Islamic states.

(3) Recognition of Iran's right to nuclear enrichment for civilian purposes: This is capped at 20%. All enriched uranium above 20% must be handed over under an IAEA inspection/monitoring regime.

(4) A permanent commitment from Iran to never develop nuclear weapons.

(5) Limits on Tehran's ballistic missile program, including reportedly restrictions on both the range and number of missiles Iran can possess.

(6) Cessation of support to militant groups in the region including Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas.

(7) Sanctions relief for Iran and Russia which would allow oil from both countries to flood international markets and be sold at market prices. Putin is at the table, not Netanyahu. Aid to and intelligence sharing with Ukraine is cut. The Russians now have an incentive to pressure Iran to sign. Yes, this would result in oil from both countries being refined and sold in the US. $1.50 a gallon unleaded anyone? $2.75 a gallon diesel? The cheap energy economic boom that would result would ensure re-election of a GOP majority this fall.

(8) The Hormuz shipping channel becomes an international waterway ensuring a free flow of marine traffic and they don't close it.

(9) If Israel continues to attack Iran after this agreement is signed, we end all military aid to Israel.

A little bit for them, a little bit for us. In the long term, a lot for us.

This is what an America first policy - an off ramp that actually helps Americans - looks like.

---

Not perfect, but reasonable. I would take this if this deal were on the table (subject to the particulars of several points).

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

For all those words, I noticed you did not actually answer the question.

Iran is being what they are being. How do you move forward?

Personally, extending the cease-fire makes sense to me. But what is your alternative?

---

Permanently extend the ceasefire by exiting. At this point we're extending ourselves for the interests of others. Go for a longer term deal when everything isn't as raw. You might also have a settled regime to engage. If they act up in the interim we can always escalate.

---

"Exiting".

Running away?

And what do you consider 'escalation', especially considering Iran would use silence and no response from us to rebuild defenses and but weapons from China.

---

They're going to rebuild defenses and buy weapons from China with or without a deal. We've shown we'll happily take them out with or without provocation.

How can we be "running away" if we've won? Their nuclear and missile capabilities have been destroyed and we've taken out their core leaders. Those are satisfactory objectives for us.

---

So, no real answer from ATL.

Just spluttering.

---

Answers you don't like isn't the same as not answering.

---

You did not answer. You channeled a CNN spin then threw out a verbal vomit.

If we just abandon Iran, you know full well that's running away by any standard.

Do you want to try for a response in substance, or do you want to just keep trying out for SNL?

---

Do you want the best outcome for the United States, or do you want to avoid looking like we ran away?

---

The best outcome for the United States and for our allies and friends is an end to the Islamic Republic.

---

A mindless crusade which we've pursued for decades, to our own detriment and the world's.