We need something to help our international credibility, it has been a tough year for our rep.

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?

---

You only care that the answer isn't what you want to hear. The question and this forum doesn't require a 10 point plan of de-escalation and military exit logistics. I covered the high points.

If I'd said, "continue negotiating for the uranium or escalate militarily" you'd have been satisfied. You really have no self awareness of your hypocrisy.

And just because you'll start a bloviating tangent of TDS, CNN, etc., your question was "what is your alternative?"

Haven't seen this reported elsewhere yet

🚨 BREAKING: THE IRANIAN GUARD JUST TOOK THE AYATOLLAH HOSTAGE 🚨

Generals are BLOCKING Peace Talks, holding their own negotiators HOSTAGE while the economy COLLAPSES 💥📉

“NO ONE’S CALLING THE SHOTS” … A COUP IS IN THE WORKS! 👀🔥

U.S. WARSHIPS STACKING THE REGION — ONE… pic.twitter.com/MuCPqxm9I7

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) April 22, 2026

I mean, this is just completely made up, and broadcast on the biggest cable news channel in the country. Just a total fabrication. https://t.co/HRLambdSoZ

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 22, 2026

pic.twitter.com/usNAMfmEu3

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) April 22, 2026

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?

---

We should have never let Trump put us position to have to make that decision . Cutting and running while not accomplishing Trumps unilateral goals. Gotta love it when a great plan comes together. Vivva la Cheeto!

FLBear5630 said:

---

We need something to help our international credibility, it has been a tough year for our rep.

---

fact. Our cred. in the world is chit! period. We eff our allies and expect them be our friends. Friendships don't work that way.

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.

---

Fat Ass is cutting and running, period. He had NO plan, No buy in. He thought it was gonna be Venezuela . He did not listen to his advisors. Let's deal in facts:

Stated Goals after the fact from Cheeto

1) wipe out their nuclear capabilities. Fail. They still have production and a **** ton of Uranium they will not budge on
2) Regime Change- Fail. Replaced with a more hard line son and the IRGC is in charge
3)Wipe out their missile capabilities-Fail - 1/2 Missles and Drones remain.

We WON!!!!!mefer! lol

pic.twitter.com/O0EIzufmPG

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 22, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Haven't seen this reported elsewhere yet

🚨 BREAKING: THE IRANIAN GUARD JUST TOOK THE AYATOLLAH HOSTAGE 🚨

Generals are BLOCKING Peace Talks, holding their own negotiators HOSTAGE while the economy COLLAPSES 💥📉

“NO ONE’S CALLING THE SHOTS” … A COUP IS IN THE WORKS! 👀🔥

U.S. WARSHIPS STACKING THE REGION — ONE… pic.twitter.com/MuCPqxm9I7

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) April 22, 2026

---

Probably with good reason.

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

Squeezing the economy through blockades, taking out critical infrastructure, and putting further hardships on the Iranian people is just as likely to increase their reliance on the regime, and that's putting aside the humanitarian issues it creates. And with the U.S. and Israel behind it, it's practically feeding into the decades of Islamic and nationalist animus they preached, which could be used to justify the limited resources being directed toward security, thus sustaining the resistance.

As far as leadership goes, I would direct you to Gaza. Despite intense hierarchy targeting, they remain in charge even today. As if the lesson can't be learned, the theological component of an Islamic state ties in everything from purpose to duty to martyrdom. And when it's decentralized, it makes it even harder to break nationally. Testing the boundaries of how deep we must go to attempt that makes me shudder.

Finally, outcome has to be considered. Even if one was to believe that regime change is possible, it's just as likely the result would be another shattered state in disarray like Syria or Libya. I would hope everyone would have concern over nation building in this region given the multitude of failed attempts.

Find the exit, and take the victory we did achieve. Decimated missile and nuclear capabilities and a reset of the Iranian threat calculus (consequences to their actions). Maybe once the rawness wears off there will be a regime to negotiate something constructive with, like energy (since we didn't destroy it).

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

Squeezing the economy through blockades, taking out critical infrastructure, and putting further hardships on the Iranian people is just as likely to increase their reliance on the regime, and that's putting aside the humanitarian issues it creates. And with the U.S. and Israel behind it, it's practically feeding into the decades of Islamic and nationalist animus they preached, which could be used to justify the limited resources being directed toward security, thus sustaining the resistance.

As far as leadership goes, I would direct you to Gaza. Despite intense hierarchy targeting, they remain in charge even today. As if the lesson can't be learned, the theological component of an Islamic state ties in everything from purpose to duty to martyrdom. And when it's decentralized, it makes it even harder to break nationally. Testing the boundaries of how deep we must go to attempt that makes me shudder.

Finally, outcome has to be considered. Even if one was to believe that regime change is possible, it's just as likely the result would be another shattered state in disarray like Syria or Libya. I would hope everyone would have concern over nation building in this region given the multitude of failed attempts.

Find the exit, and take the victory we did achieve. Decimated missile and nuclear capabilities and a reset of the Iranian threat calculus (consequences to their actions). Maybe once the rawness wears off there will be a regime to negotiate something constructive with, like energy (since we didn't destroy it).

---

Man,I'd sure like to know what a win looks like here. We are not winning. Cheeto wants out at any costs. Loss so far

boognish_bear said:

---

Haven't seen this reported elsewhere yet

🚨 BREAKING: THE IRANIAN GUARD JUST TOOK THE AYATOLLAH HOSTAGE 🚨

Generals are BLOCKING Peace Talks, holding their own negotiators HOSTAGE while the economy COLLAPSES 💥📉

“NO ONE’S CALLING THE SHOTS” … A COUP IS IN THE WORKS! 👀🔥

U.S. WARSHIPS STACKING THE REGION — ONE… pic.twitter.com/MuCPqxm9I7

— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) April 22, 2026

---

There are tens of people in nursing homes watching Fox 24/7 who believe this.

{ sipping War coffee }

- UF

{ eating Victory donut }

D!

Keep 'em guessing, like il Donaldo!!!

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

Squeezing the economy through blockades, taking out critical infrastructure, and putting further hardships on the Iranian people is just as likely to increase their reliance on the regime, and that's putting aside the humanitarian issues it creates. And with the U.S. and Israel behind it, it's practically feeding into the decades of Islamic and nationalist animus they preached, which could be used to justify the limited resources being directed toward security, thus sustaining the resistance.

As far as leadership goes, I would direct you to Gaza. Despite intense hierarchy targeting, they remain in charge even today. As if the lesson can't be learned, the theological component of an Islamic state ties in everything from purpose to duty to martyrdom. And when it's decentralized, it makes it even harder to break nationally. Testing the boundaries of how deep we must go to attempt that makes me shudder.

Finally, outcome has to be considered. Even if one was to believe that regime change is possible, it's just as likely the result would be another shattered state in disarray like Syria or Libya. I would hope everyone would have concern over nation building in this region given the multitude of failed attempts.

Find the exit, and take the victory we did achieve. Decimated missile and nuclear capabilities and a reset of the Iranian threat calculus (consequences to their actions). Maybe once the rawness wears off there will be a regime to negotiate something constructive with, like energy (since we didn't destroy it).

---

Man,I'd sure like to know what a win looks like here. We are not winning. Cheeto wants out at any costs. Loss so far

---

Iran's military and missile structure is decimated as are its enrichment facilities. They can tote around enriched uranium all they want, but without reaction and delivery capabilities it's just hazardous material. They've taken out a good swath of the regime leaders and reset the threat assessment Iran has to take into account. Those are wins for the U.S. Extending the goals further not only makes it more difficult, but increases the chances for outcomes that could be considered "losses".

I think the question you and others are asking is more along the lines of were the aforementioned victories worth it.

Serious Slippage in US Naval Blockade as Iranian Vessels Go Dark

"Confirmation from Bloomberg after some initial unverified claims circulated yesterday: Iran Tankers Go Dark to Sail Past US Blockade Laden With Oil. Additional reports suggest that the total number of Iran-linked tankers slipping through is actually much larger, suggesting the potential unravelling of the US naval blockade of ships visiting Iran's ports:

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is unraveling after dozens of Iranian vessels secretly slipped past US surveillance, even as the regime tightened its grip on the critical oil passageway by attacking three tankers.
Approximately 34 Iranian oil tankers have slipped through the blockade, with 19 vessels exiting the Persian Gulf past Trump's navy and another 15 ships entering from the Arabian Sea toward Iran, according to the Financial Times. Six of those tankers were smuggling Iranian crude oil totaling 10.7 million barrels, estimated to be worth approximately $910 million in revenue for the regime.

---

Of course, the Pentagon's own figures stand in direct contradiction, but the fact that major Western MSM outlets like FT and Bloomberg are picking up on significant numbers getting through doesn't bode well for the Trump blockade."

Two Iranian Women in ICE Detention Are Not, In Fact, Related to Qasem Soleimani, Documents Show

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/iranian-women-ice-detention-not-related-qasem-soleimani-rubio-loomer?publication_id=2510348&post_id=195052582&isFreemail=true&r=1pb0fd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

" Two Iranian women remain in immigration detention, arrested earlier this month on accusations of being the niece and grandniece of Qasem Soleimani, despite no connection to the late Iranian military commander. Drop Site reviewed Iranian birth records, identification papers, a family will, and other personal documents and found no connection whatsoever to him or his extended family. One of the women is now seriously ill in a Texas facility, her chronic blood condition left effectively untreated.

On March 8, right-wing activist Laura Loomer posted on X calling for the deportation of a woman she claimed was Soleimani's niece. The commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Maj. Gen. Soleimani was assassinated by a U.S. drone strike, ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, in Baghdad on January 3, 2020. The day after Loomer's original post, she tagged Secretary of State Marco Rubio on X, claiming to have reported the woman to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for "posting content sympathetic to the Iranian regime and Ayatollah."

On April 3, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter, Sarina Hosseiny, were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at their home outside Los Angeles. Rubio issued a statement headlined, "Secretary Rubio Revokes Green Cards of Foreign Nationals with Ties to Iranian Terror Regime," identifying them as "the niece and grand niece of deceased Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Qasem Soleimani" and describing them as "green card holders living lavishly in the United States."

The claims made headline news in the U.S., while triggering immediate denials from Soleimani's family that the two women were relatives of the military commander. The Trump administration has gone largely quiet about the women's cases since their arrest, as they remain in ICE detention pending deportation to Iran."

Realitybites said:

---

Two Iranian Women in ICE Detention Are Not, In Fact, Related to Qasem Soleimani, Documents Show

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/iranian-women-ice-detention-not-related-qasem-soleimani-rubio-loomer?publication_id=2510348&post_id=195052582&isFreemail=true&r=1pb0fd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

" Two Iranian women remain in immigration detention, arrested earlier this month on accusations of being the niece and grandniece of Qasem Soleimani, despite no connection to the late Iranian military commander. Drop Site reviewed Iranian birth records, identification papers, a family will, and other personal documents and found no connection whatsoever to him or his extended family. One of the women is now seriously ill in a Texas facility, her chronic blood condition left effectively untreated.

On March 8, right-wing activist Laura Loomer posted on X calling for the deportation of a woman she claimed was Soleimani's niece. The commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Maj. Gen. Soleimani was assassinated by a U.S. drone strike, ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump, in Baghdad on January 3, 2020. The day after Loomer's original post, she tagged Secretary of State Marco Rubio on X, claiming to have reported the woman to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for "posting content sympathetic to the Iranian regime and Ayatollah."

On April 3, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar and her daughter, Sarina Hosseiny, were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at their home outside Los Angeles. Rubio issued a statement headlined, "Secretary Rubio Revokes Green Cards of Foreign Nationals with Ties to Iranian Terror Regime," identifying them as "the niece and grand niece of deceased Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Qasem Soleimani" and describing them as "green card holders living lavishly in the United States."

The claims made headline news in the U.S., while triggering immediate denials from Soleimani's family that the two women were relatives of the military commander. The Trump administration has gone largely quiet about the women's cases since their arrest, as they remain in ICE detention pending deportation to Iran."

---

How did this random news site get access to records inside Iran?

boognish_bear said:

---

I mean, this is just completely made up, and broadcast on the biggest cable news channel in the country. Just a total fabrication. https://t.co/HRLambdSoZ

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 22, 2026

---

Guy is a "reporter" for Drop site news... a Soros financed "news" outlet that has been accused of parroting Iranian propaganda. Take it for what you will. But probably best not to believe everything you see or read.

Funny reading about 'hypocrisy' from someone obsessed only with attacking our side.

I deal with what is, sir. And what is at this place and time is a ceasefire with Iran, with negotiations going on.

So many internet trolls here reject the idea of extending the ceasefire. They have absolutely no proposal for what we should do here and now, with conditions we have here and now. They only want to throw crap, because that's what they know.

Asking those who don't want to extend the ceasefire to explain their alternate plan is a completely valid question, and on-point. Falsely accusing me of hypocrisy because you don't want to have to act like an adult, that's something very different.

You don't have to like Trump's decisions on this (for the record, I do not like many of them), but pretending this is just a game you 'win' by throwing spit and piss at anyone asking you to grow up, is worth sharp rebuke.

ATL Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

Squeezing the economy through blockades, taking out critical infrastructure, and putting further hardships on the Iranian people is just as likely to increase their reliance on the regime, and that's putting aside the humanitarian issues it creates. And with the U.S. and Israel behind it, it's practically feeding into the decades of Islamic and nationalist animus they preached, which could be used to justify the limited resources being directed toward security, thus sustaining the resistance.

As far as leadership goes, I would direct you to Gaza. Despite intense hierarchy targeting, they remain in charge even today. As if the lesson can't be learned, the theological component of an Islamic state ties in everything from purpose to duty to martyrdom. And when it's decentralized, it makes it even harder to break nationally. Testing the boundaries of how deep we must go to attempt that makes me shudder.

Finally, outcome has to be considered. Even if one was to believe that regime change is possible, it's just as likely the result would be another shattered state in disarray like Syria or Libya. I would hope everyone would have concern over nation building in this region given the multitude of failed attempts.

Find the exit, and take the victory we did achieve. Decimated missile and nuclear capabilities and a reset of the Iranian threat calculus (consequences to their actions). Maybe once the rawness wears off there will be a regime to negotiate something constructive with, like energy (since we didn't destroy it).

---

Man,I'd sure like to know what a win looks like here. We are not winning. Cheeto wants out at any costs. Loss so far

---

Iran's military and missile structure is decimated as are its enrichment facilities. They can tote around enriched uranium all they want, but without reaction and delivery capabilities it's just hazardous material. They've taken out a good swath of the regime leaders and reset the threat assessment Iran has to take into account. Those are wins for the U.S. Extending the goals further not only makes it more difficult, but increases the chances for outcomes that could be considered "losses".

I think the question you and others are asking is more along the lines of were the aforementioned victories worth it.

---

Stay the course…..

Excellent analysis. Worth the read. https://t.co/sCNhylG5Y8

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) April 22, 2026

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I mean, this is just completely made up, and broadcast on the biggest cable news channel in the country. Just a total fabrication. https://t.co/HRLambdSoZ

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 22, 2026

---

Guy is a "reporter" for Drop site news... a Soros financed "news" outlet that has been accused of parroting Iranian propaganda. Take it for what you will. But probably best not to believe everything you see or read.

---

Soros shouldn't bother you, Bessent was his finance guy when he sunk the British Pound and you guys are cheering him on

Oldbear83 said:

---

Funny reading about 'hypocrisy' from someone obsessed only with attacking our side.

I deal with what is, sir. And what is at this place and time is a ceasefire with Iran, with negotiations going on.

So many internet trolls here reject the idea of extending the ceasefire. They have absolutely no proposal for what we should do here and now, with conditions we have here and now. They only want to throw crap, because that's what they know.

Asking those who don't want to extend the ceasefire to explain their alternate plan is a completely valid question, and on-point. Falsely accusing me of hypocrisy because you don't want to have to act like an adult, that's something very different.

You don't have to like Trump's decisions on this (for the record, I do not like many of them), but pretending this is just a game you 'win' by throwing spit and piss at anyone asking you to grow up, is worth sharp rebuke.

---

You're the only one throwing spit and piss. You've become incorrigible and obtuse. I literally said extend the ceasefire permanently and exit. I even went into deep detail of my concerns of continuing in a reply to DC Bear. You're the only one acting like a petulant child with the hubris to tell me I'm not acting like an adult. Good grief…

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Funny reading about 'hypocrisy' from someone obsessed only with attacking our side.

I deal with what is, sir. And what is at this place and time is a ceasefire with Iran, with negotiations going on.

So many internet trolls here reject the idea of extending the ceasefire. They have absolutely no proposal for what we should do here and now, with conditions we have here and now. They only want to throw crap, because that's what they know.

Asking those who don't want to extend the ceasefire to explain their alternate plan is a completely valid question, and on-point. Falsely accusing me of hypocrisy because you don't want to have to act like an adult, that's something very different.

You don't have to like Trump's decisions on this (for the record, I do not like many of them), but pretending this is just a game you 'win' by throwing spit and piss at anyone asking you to grow up, is worth sharp rebuke.

---

You're the only one throwing spit and piss. You've become incorrigible and obtuse. I literally said extend the ceasefire permanently and exit. I even went into deep detail of my concerns of continuing in a reply to DC Bear. You're the only one acting like a petulant child with the hubris to tell me I'm not acting like an adult. Good grief…

---

Quite the tantrum you threw, for an "adult".

And yeah, I called you out for suggesting we just leave Iran.

Incredibly stupid idea, that. Especially since you threw it and stamped out.

And your posted "concerns" ... Good Lord, you need a Xanax and time away from this board, mister.

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Funny reading about 'hypocrisy' from someone obsessed only with attacking our side.

I deal with what is, sir. And what is at this place and time is a ceasefire with Iran, with negotiations going on.

So many internet trolls here reject the idea of extending the ceasefire. They have absolutely no proposal for what we should do here and now, with conditions we have here and now. They only want to throw crap, because that's what they know.

Asking those who don't want to extend the ceasefire to explain their alternate plan is a completely valid question, and on-point. Falsely accusing me of hypocrisy because you don't want to have to act like an adult, that's something very different.

You don't have to like Trump's decisions on this (for the record, I do not like many of them), but pretending this is just a game you 'win' by throwing spit and piss at anyone asking you to grow up, is worth sharp rebuke.

---

You're the only one throwing spit and piss. You've become incorrigible and obtuse. I literally said extend the ceasefire permanently and exit. I even went into deep detail of my concerns of continuing in a reply to DC Bear. You're the only one acting like a petulant child with the hubris to tell me I'm not acting like an adult. Good grief…

---

Quite the tantrum you threw, for an "adult".

And yeah, I called you out for suggesting we just leave Iran.

Incredibly stupid idea, that. Especially since you threw it and stamped out.

And your posted "concerns" ... Good Lord, you need a Xanax and time away from this board, mister.

---

I'll use smaller words next time for the simpleton.

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I mean, this is just completely made up, and broadcast on the biggest cable news channel in the country. Just a total fabrication. https://t.co/HRLambdSoZ

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 22, 2026

---

Guy is a "reporter" for Drop site news... a Soros financed "news" outlet that has been accused of parroting Iranian propaganda. Take it for what you will. But probably best not to believe everything you see or read.

---

Have you seen other sources confirming the Fox News report?

boognish_bear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I mean, this is just completely made up, and broadcast on the biggest cable news channel in the country. Just a total fabrication. https://t.co/HRLambdSoZ

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 22, 2026

---

Guy is a "reporter" for Drop site news... a Soros financed "news" outlet that has been accused of parroting Iranian propaganda. Take it for what you will. But probably best not to believe everything you see or read.

---

Have you seen other sources confirming the Fox News report?

---

I don't know what's going on but random internet guy saying it's all lies has no credibility.

It seems to me the Iranian government is fractured and the military is now calling the shots. It doesn't appear they are interested in negotiating

😏🎯 pic.twitter.com/V49KT0WifQ

— Mike Bales 🫡🇺🇸 (@MikeBales) April 22, 2026

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Funny reading about 'hypocrisy' from someone obsessed only with attacking our side.

I deal with what is, sir. And what is at this place and time is a ceasefire with Iran, with negotiations going on.

So many internet trolls here reject the idea of extending the ceasefire. They have absolutely no proposal for what we should do here and now, with conditions we have here and now. They only want to throw crap, because that's what they know.

Asking those who don't want to extend the ceasefire to explain their alternate plan is a completely valid question, and on-point. Falsely accusing me of hypocrisy because you don't want to have to act like an adult, that's something very different.

You don't have to like Trump's decisions on this (for the record, I do not like many of them), but pretending this is just a game you 'win' by throwing spit and piss at anyone asking you to grow up, is worth sharp rebuke.

---

You're the only one throwing spit and piss. You've become incorrigible and obtuse. I literally said extend the ceasefire permanently and exit. I even went into deep detail of my concerns of continuing in a reply to DC Bear. You're the only one acting like a petulant child with the hubris to tell me I'm not acting like an adult. Good grief…

---

Quite the tantrum you threw, for an "adult".

And yeah, I called you out for suggesting we just leave Iran.

Incredibly stupid idea, that. Especially since you threw it and stamped out.

And your posted "concerns" ... Good Lord, you need a Xanax and time away from this board, mister.

---

I'll use smaller words next time for the simpleton.

---

The 'simpleton' being the voice in your head, then ...

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I mean, this is just completely made up, and broadcast on the biggest cable news channel in the country. Just a total fabrication. https://t.co/HRLambdSoZ

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 22, 2026

---

Guy is a "reporter" for Drop site news... a Soros financed "news" outlet that has been accused of parroting Iranian propaganda. Take it for what you will. But probably best not to believe everything you see or read.

---

Have you seen other sources confirming the Fox News report?

---

I don't know what's going on but random internet guy saying it's all lies has no credibility.

It seems to me the Iranian government is fractured and the military is now calling the shots. It doesn't appear they are interested in negotiating

---

If the military has the closest thing to control of Iran, they will indeed be 'interested in negotiating'. It's simply that if that's the case, their military will be seeking guarantees from our military.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

I mean, this is just completely made up, and broadcast on the biggest cable news channel in the country. Just a total fabrication. https://t.co/HRLambdSoZ

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) April 22, 2026

---

Guy is a "reporter" for Drop site news... a Soros financed "news" outlet that has been accused of parroting Iranian propaganda. Take it for what you will. But probably best not to believe everything you see or read.

---

Have you seen other sources confirming the Fox News report?

---

I don't know what's going on but random internet guy saying it's all lies has no credibility.

It seems to me the Iranian government is fractured and the military is now calling the shots. It doesn't appear they are interested in negotiating

---

If the military has the closest thing to control of Iran, they will indeed be 'interested in negotiating'. It's simply that if that's the case, their military will be seeking guarantees from our military.

---

There are TWO militaries in Iran: the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (150k strong), and the Artesh (350k strong). IRGC is to defend and promote the islamic revolution. The Artesh is the conventional home defense force. We are almost exclusively focusing our attacks on the IRGC. The reason is obvious: we are trying to smoke the radicals and leave the more moderate of the two militaries intact in order to clear the way for the latter to seize power (and cut a deal with us).

I predicted this dynamic would unfold. It's an obvious template to work. So far, the things seems to be coming together.

At some point, personal and institutional survival instinct takes over. Somewhere in the Artesh there is a charismatic, level-headed, and ambitious general or colonel who will make the move to forge a new future for his country.

https://nypost.com/2026/03/14/us-news/why-trump-is-obliterating-one-iranian-army-but-sparing-another/

The Revolutionary Guard is not exactly the military. More like internal security to keep people from being able to protest the mullahs.

whiterock said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

Squeezing the economy through blockades, taking out critical infrastructure, and putting further hardships on the Iranian people is just as likely to increase their reliance on the regime, and that's putting aside the humanitarian issues it creates. And with the U.S. and Israel behind it, it's practically feeding into the decades of Islamic and nationalist animus they preached, which could be used to justify the limited resources being directed toward security, thus sustaining the resistance.

As far as leadership goes, I would direct you to Gaza. Despite intense hierarchy targeting, they remain in charge even today. As if the lesson can't be learned, the theological component of an Islamic state ties in everything from purpose to duty to martyrdom. And when it's decentralized, it makes it even harder to break nationally. Testing the boundaries of how deep we must go to attempt that makes me shudder.

Finally, outcome has to be considered. Even if one was to believe that regime change is possible, it's just as likely the result would be another shattered state in disarray like Syria or Libya. I would hope everyone would have concern over nation building in this region given the multitude of failed attempts.

Find the exit, and take the victory we did achieve. Decimated missile and nuclear capabilities and a reset of the Iranian threat calculus (consequences to their actions). Maybe once the rawness wears off there will be a regime to negotiate something constructive with, like energy (since we didn't destroy it).

---

Man,I'd sure like to know what a win looks like here. We are not winning. Cheeto wants out at any costs. Loss so far

---

Iran's military and missile structure is decimated as are its enrichment facilities. They can tote around enriched uranium all they want, but without reaction and delivery capabilities it's just hazardous material. They've taken out a good swath of the regime leaders and reset the threat assessment Iran has to take into account. Those are wins for the U.S. Extending the goals further not only makes it more difficult, but increases the chances for outcomes that could be considered "losses".

I think the question you and others are asking is more along the lines of were the aforementioned victories worth it.

---

Stay the course…..

Excellent analysis. Worth the read. https://t.co/sCNhylG5Y8

— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) April 22, 2026

---

Thanks Whiterock!

Very interesting….

[Early in the war, Iran closed the Strait which placed economic pressure on the rest of the world. Despite the fact that it was Iran mining the Strait and shooting at the ships that attempted to navigate it, many countries expressed anger at the US and Israel. This was the outcome Iran wanted. Then, the regime decided to allow friendly ships to pass if they paid a fee. The fees were about $1/barrel of oil, or about $2MM per large container vessel…

This looked like worst-case scenario for the US. Iran succeeded in closing the Strait and causing economic problems all over the world, then found a way to profit from their own actions. Then, President Trump played his "reverse uno" card. He correctly realized that it wasn't just the rest of the world that depended on free passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and that it was Iran that had the most exposure. Iran is a big oil producer, and oil exports account for 80% of Iran's exports, 60% of government revenue, and 25% of its GDP. It turns out that Iran has more economic exposure to this narrow waterway than anyone else. President Trump sent the US Navy to form a blockade. He closed the Strait himself ensuring no more $2MM/vessel charges and an inability for Iran to export oil.

Iran is close to filling its own storage. Once its oil tanks are full, the regime has two choices, either capitulate and come to an agreement with the US, or to stop producing from its own wells. The problem with the second choice is that it's difficult to reverse. Stopping production on an active oil well tends to damage it and it's hard to re-start later. Iran now has a limited amount of time to find a course of action before 25% of its GDP becomes permanently(ish) impaired.

While no one in the US likes paying more for gas, prices were much higher just four years ago in 2022 and around $4/gallon in 2008, 2011, and 2012 when $4 had more purchasing power than it does now. The US is a net energy exporter with an economy that has survived higher prices in the past. Foreign ships are turning away from the Strait of Hormuz and sailing to Texas and other southern US ports to fill up at premium prices. I'm not suggesting that this is great for the US; but rather, that the US is well-suited to manage the situation while Iran is about to be faced with a massive long-term problem.]

ATL Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Funny reading about 'hypocrisy' from someone obsessed only with attacking our side.

I deal with what is, sir. And what is at this place and time is a ceasefire with Iran, with negotiations going on.

So many internet trolls here reject the idea of extending the ceasefire. They have absolutely no proposal for what we should do here and now, with conditions we have here and now. They only want to throw crap, because that's what they know.

Asking those who don't want to extend the ceasefire to explain their alternate plan is a completely valid question, and on-point. Falsely accusing me of hypocrisy because you don't want to have to act like an adult, that's something very different.

You don't have to like Trump's decisions on this (for the record, I do not like many of them), but pretending this is just a game you 'win' by throwing spit and piss at anyone asking you to grow up, is worth sharp rebuke.

---

You're the only one throwing spit and piss. You've become incorrigible and obtuse. I literally said extend the ceasefire permanently and exit. I even went into deep detail of my concerns of continuing in a reply to DC Bear. You're the only one acting like a petulant child with the hubris to tell me I'm not acting like an adult. Good grief…

---

Oldbear83 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?

---

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.

---

I didn't say anything about Trump, nor did I oppose the so-called ceasefire. My course of action is to walk away before the damage to the world economy and to whatever good will we have left with our allies and our opponents alike becomes irreversible.

Your position is that you don't want to be called a chicken. We get it -- the Marty McFly doctrine of foreign policy. Good luck with that.