Ali Gholhaki, an Iranian journalist who often publishes first-hand news about impending developments with the IRGC, has reported that the US's demands were the removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, no nuclear enrichment whatsoever, and US management of the Strait of Hormuz. In exchange they were not offering any commitment regarding Lebanon. https://x.com/aghplt/status/2043092254416605522 Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily, I find it bizarre that they thought they would have any sort of leverage at the negotiating table regarding these demands. All the peace talks did was lower oil prices a bit for a few days.
My guess is it’s a chance to restock and reposition air defense as the slow attrition of interceptors was starting to open holes in the air defense. This administration has used negotiations as a diversion for further attacks on Iran and I suspect this is no different. I also suspect the Iranians know this and are likewise doing their best to prepare for them to fail.
This is not true. The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy, only continuation of the atrocities. This is not a ceasefire entered in bad faith, it is simply a strategic usage of one of the few tools that can end a war, and in my opinion morally abhorrent.
> The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy
Israel has pretty consistently claimed they never agreed to a ceasefire in lebanon (and nobody is claiming this ceasefire changed anything in Gaza). Iran seemed to only claim the ceasefire included lebanon later on and not initially (afaict, not 100% sure). Honestly it makes one wonder if the terms were even written down. Seems like an easy solution to this problem would be to just publicly release the ceasefire agreement document.
I am talking about the previous ones. For the current one, it is clear that Israel is trying to force the deal to go south by continuing to bomb civilians in Lebanon, because it does not want the war to end.
Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself
> With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
PM of Pakistan announced without a doubt after the agreement that Lebanon "and elsewhere" were included.
"Western" media seemed to gloss over this "small detail".
Israel hadn't agreed to anything yet though. There was apparently some confusion in the Pakistani mediation. Vance called it a "legitimate misunderstanding".
Like you I do not have a direct line with the diplomats of the involved countries, but every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement.
What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.
I think it's less about restocking and repositioning air defenses. The expensive weapons systems the US and its allies are running short on can't be replenished in weeks or even months. I think this was more about buying time to prepare for a ground war and probably to try to come up with some semblance of a strategy.
It also served as a useful way for Trump to throw Vance under the bus. If the negotiations were serious and in good faith, I think you would have seen Rubio there. Instead, you had Rubio sitting ringside at a UFC fight while the talks collapsed.
>Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile
I did not think this was possible. The three sites that were bombed in 2025 are all pretty centrally located within the country. Even if you can get troops there, the facilities are hardened and at least partially underground. Depending on how effective you believe the 2025 strikes to be, some of the facilities may be collapsed under tons of rock. There is no way to smash-and-grab the already enriched uranium.
Iran's state media reported that the F-15 rescue mission was a cover to steal enriched uranium, something which fits the facts a lot more than them constructing an airstrip in enemy territory and blowing up at least two MC-130s just to rescue a pilot:
Also suspicious that Iran came to the negotiating table just a couple days after the F-15 mission after insisting for the other 5 weeks that there would be no negotiating and they were not even in contact with Washington.
> Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily
The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything. The Iranians have some missiles and drones left, but they are increasingly isolated and on their last legs economically. These "talks" have to be understood as a negotiated surrender that would leave what is left of the regime in place in exchange for complete disarmament.
What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter?
The only options left for US are large scale bombing, like in Vietnam or Cambodia OR putting soldiers on the ground. Going on for years. Or drop a nuke.
Bombing will be of limited use and extremely costly, because is Iran is too large. Its a geographical fortress, mostly large mountain ranges, or deserts.
Soldiers on the ground means a large scale logistics setup, bases, buildup, etc. Its costly and deadly. US soldiers will start dying from day 1.
And then, Iran has total control over the strait. It can decimate the livable conditions in the GCC countries. Mind you, Iran gets about 5% of its water from desalination plants. Almost all GCC countries get more than 50%, sometimes upto 85% of their water from desalination plants. Couple that with hits on their power infra, and the population will be left thirsty in the middle of the desert. None of them can survive without their Air conditioners and water supply. With those countries dying out, Iran emerges as the super power in the region.
“The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” Vance said.
“So we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are.”
It was clear the U.S. was not serious about these negotiations when they sent Vance. It's also clear the U.S. doesn't have the cards to end this conflict by force. They can use drones to clear the straight of Hormuz of mines, but that won't address all the other methods Iran has to threaten shipping. Any military measure short of the full occupation of Iran will likely fail to reopen the straight. The U.S. plainly lacks the resources to occupy a country four times the size of Iraq without allies, and the Iranians know it. The U.S. is going to have to bend on some of its red lines and actually negotiate in order to reach a deal.
Many countries are standing back and waiting for the Americans to fix their own mess, but for how long will they wait? At what point do these nations lose patience with the constant economic disruption and look for coercive measures to force the U.S. back to the table?
The negotiatons can be considered a big success because Israeli leaders did not order the murder of the negotiators this time. This will open doors for more realistic negotiations in the future.
The US is wasting time and resources in overseas conflicts, National security should be built on domestic strength, specifically by securing our power grid and reducing global oil dependence. We have the technology, tools, solar, wind, advanced battery storage, nuclear power and electric vehicles to make this happen.
We have the wrong people in place to make this happen.
What China Just Learned From the Iran War: Beijing watched America bomb Iran and drew its own conclusions about red lines, deterrence, and Taiwan. The lessons are not the ones Washington wants China to learn: A blockade of Taiwan would hurt the global economy more than Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/04/china-...
Negotiation was just a pretext for preparing ground troops. Netanjahu is calling the shots here. Not Trump who sent (his son in law) Kushner and Wittkoff to „negotiate“, Kushner, whose parents have hosted Netanyahu whenever he visited the US. And he doesn’t want the war to end. He wants to destroy Iran‘s industrial infrastructure. And while this war is not over, he and Israeli figures are hinting at their next target: Türkiye.
Not really surprising to me. Neither side had really backed down from their conflicting demands, at least publicly (albeit keeping track of what trumps public position is, is basically impossible). Maybe something different was being said privately, but it really seemed unlikely a deal would be reached.
Not to mention the constraints US is under from its partners. Even if US wants to wrap things up and is willing to give Iran whatever it wants to get that, i can't imagine that gulf countries would be thrilled by iran essentially taxing their oil exports, and Israel seems pretty intent on finishing off Hezbollah. USA might have significant influence among its partners, but they aren't its puppets and are unlikely to go along with plans significantly against their own interests just because america said so.
That was expected. The previous article in the NYT about internal opposition against Trump's war policies, which specifically protected Vance, was a farce and probably a deliberate fake leak.
Vance has a big mouth about isolationism, but will follow the permanent bureaucracy like anyone else. The Iran war was on the agenda since 1979, they just needed someone crazy enough to do it when Russia is weakened.
The agenda 2025 wants to hurt Europe and China, so that goal is reached by a prolonged war. The EU leaders are children who are too stupid to negotiate on their own. The EU press is owned by pro-US corporations, like Springer in Germany that makes journalists sign an agreement that "Atlanticism" is one of the core values of "Die Welt" and "Bild". Previously Green party anti-war magazines like TAZ have gone neocon. Unfortunately, "Atlanticism" is a one way street.
We are now in the situation that the US threatens the EU to withdraw from NATO when it cannot even protect the Gulf States. The EU "leaders" nod fearfully and isolate themselves from all of Asia and the Middle East instead of negotiating on their own.
The Trump administration’s account of an incident on Saturday involving two U.S. Navy destroyers near the Strait of Hormuz appeared to be undercut Sunday as Iranian state media released footage contradicting claims made by the Department of Defense.
On Saturday, U.S. Central Command claimed that two U.S. Navy destroyers had successfully “transited the Strait of Hormuz” and began operations to clear the waterway of sea mines placed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. President Donald Trump repeated the claim in a social media post, while a U.S. official also said destroyers had not received a threat from the IRGC, per Axios' Barak Ravid.
Tehran refuted the Trump administration’s claim, however, with a report from Bloomberg suggesting that the two destroyers were “forced to turn back” after receiving threats from the IRGC, and that the destroyers had not passed through the strait.
Why would you even agree to talks if your starting negotiation position is going to be so unreasonable, its pointless.
Attempting to deny a country security in the form of controlling their own water ways, controlling their own energy independence or holding a deterrent to prevent genocidal neighbours from attacking is simply wrong.
178 comments
Even ceasefires entered in good faith often collapse so countries always try and reposition stuff during the ceasefire for when/if that happens.
> The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy
Israel has pretty consistently claimed they never agreed to a ceasefire in lebanon (and nobody is claiming this ceasefire changed anything in Gaza). Iran seemed to only claim the ceasefire included lebanon later on and not initially (afaict, not 100% sure). Honestly it makes one wonder if the terms were even written down. Seems like an easy solution to this problem would be to just publicly release the ceasefire agreement document.
Iran absolutely demanded a ceasefire in Lebanon from the beginning. It was the US that lied and said otherwise.
> With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
PM of Pakistan announced without a doubt after the agreement that Lebanon "and elsewhere" were included.
"Western" media seemed to gloss over this "small detail".
https://www.livemint.com/news/world/pakistan-pm-shehbaz-shar...
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/4/8/how-pakistan-man...
What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.
The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.
It also served as a useful way for Trump to throw Vance under the bus. If the negotiations were serious and in good faith, I think you would have seen Rubio there. Instead, you had Rubio sitting ringside at a UFC fight while the talks collapsed.
>Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile
I did not think this was possible. The three sites that were bombed in 2025 are all pretty centrally located within the country. Even if you can get troops there, the facilities are hardened and at least partially underground. Depending on how effective you believe the 2025 strikes to be, some of the facilities may be collapsed under tons of rock. There is no way to smash-and-grab the already enriched uranium.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/did-us...
Also suspicious that Iran came to the negotiating table just a couple days after the F-15 mission after insisting for the other 5 weeks that there would be no negotiating and they were not even in contact with Washington.
> Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily
The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything. The Iranians have some missiles and drones left, but they are increasingly isolated and on their last legs economically. These "talks" have to be understood as a negotiated surrender that would leave what is left of the regime in place in exchange for complete disarmament.
The only options left for US are large scale bombing, like in Vietnam or Cambodia OR putting soldiers on the ground. Going on for years. Or drop a nuke.
Bombing will be of limited use and extremely costly, because is Iran is too large. Its a geographical fortress, mostly large mountain ranges, or deserts.
Soldiers on the ground means a large scale logistics setup, bases, buildup, etc. Its costly and deadly. US soldiers will start dying from day 1.
And then, Iran has total control over the strait. It can decimate the livable conditions in the GCC countries. Mind you, Iran gets about 5% of its water from desalination plants. Almost all GCC countries get more than 50%, sometimes upto 85% of their water from desalination plants. Couple that with hits on their power infra, and the population will be left thirsty in the middle of the desert. None of them can survive without their Air conditioners and water supply. With those countries dying out, Iran emerges as the super power in the region.
“So we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/12/jd-vance-says-...
--------------
It was clear the U.S. was not serious about these negotiations when they sent Vance. It's also clear the U.S. doesn't have the cards to end this conflict by force. They can use drones to clear the straight of Hormuz of mines, but that won't address all the other methods Iran has to threaten shipping. Any military measure short of the full occupation of Iran will likely fail to reopen the straight. The U.S. plainly lacks the resources to occupy a country four times the size of Iraq without allies, and the Iranians know it. The U.S. is going to have to bend on some of its red lines and actually negotiate in order to reach a deal.
Many countries are standing back and waiting for the Americans to fix their own mess, but for how long will they wait? At what point do these nations lose patience with the constant economic disruption and look for coercive measures to force the U.S. back to the table?
Not to mention the constraints US is under from its partners. Even if US wants to wrap things up and is willing to give Iran whatever it wants to get that, i can't imagine that gulf countries would be thrilled by iran essentially taxing their oil exports, and Israel seems pretty intent on finishing off Hezbollah. USA might have significant influence among its partners, but they aren't its puppets and are unlikely to go along with plans significantly against their own interests just because america said so.
Vance has a big mouth about isolationism, but will follow the permanent bureaucracy like anyone else. The Iran war was on the agenda since 1979, they just needed someone crazy enough to do it when Russia is weakened.
The agenda 2025 wants to hurt Europe and China, so that goal is reached by a prolonged war. The EU leaders are children who are too stupid to negotiate on their own. The EU press is owned by pro-US corporations, like Springer in Germany that makes journalists sign an agreement that "Atlanticism" is one of the core values of "Die Welt" and "Bild". Previously Green party anti-war magazines like TAZ have gone neocon. Unfortunately, "Atlanticism" is a one way street.
We are now in the situation that the US threatens the EU to withdraw from NATO when it cannot even protect the Gulf States. The EU "leaders" nod fearfully and isolate themselves from all of Asia and the Middle East instead of negotiating on their own.
Attempting to deny a country security in the form of controlling their own water ways, controlling their own energy independence or holding a deterrent to prevent genocidal neighbours from attacking is simply wrong.