Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Yazata Wrote:Translation: Iran can shoot at Israel and the Gulf Arabs, but Israel can't shoot at Hezbollah. I think that we all know what Bibi Netahyahu thinks about that.

You can spin it that(?) way or you could spin it that Iran continues shooting ->because<- Israel is shooting at Hezbollah which (clearly) they had every intention of doing regardless of any ceasefire agreement between Iran and the US. In reality Israel would like Trump to obliterate Iran and the Iranian leaders don't seem that bothered either way so (strangely) the one with the problem is Trump

Terrorists and Islamists are liars, the latter decreed by their scripture. If they were negotiating in good faith, they would have mentioned Hezbollah as a stipulation. They did not. They intended to use it as an excuse to disregard the agreement.

Israel was not even a party to the negotiations, so the US could not make any promises on their behalf. Accusing Israel of breaking a ceasefire it wasn't a party to is intellectually dishonest, at best.

---

According to reports, Israel's historic strike on Hezbollah, which today - in a total of 10 minutes - reduced 100 Hezbollah operational centers across all of Lebanon to rubble and blood, can be considered the result of one of the finest intelligence operations in the world, surpassing even the killings of Hassan Nasrallah and Yahya Sinwar in its brilliance.

The story goes like this: Hezbollah, having lost the full logistical support of the Islamic Republic, intended to launch a swift and powerful coup to topple the government of Joseph Aoun, seize complete control of Lebanon, and, after fully consolidating power, enter direct negotiations with the United States itself through a delegation consisting of Naim Qassem and Nabi Berri—thereby attempting to work around Israel altogether.

Israel, however, with complete intelligence dominance, caught wind of the plot and - just a few hours before the coup, without any prior warning - leveled 100 Hezbollah centers across Lebanon within mere minutes.

Some witnesses to the bombings, especially in the Zahle area, are calling it the most awe and fear inducing display of military might in the region's history.

Bibi holds a press conference tonight to update...

If verified, I give thanks to Israel for this remarkable operation to help liberate and secure Lebanon, as well as protecting and securing its own northern border - which also explains a tiny bit more about why a "ceasefire" with Iran might be a temporary strategy, not a ceding of total regime change.

(paraphrased from Reza Sad on X)
- https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=266...4992260767

Interesting opinion piece about who is actually running Iran,

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/jeff-charl...d-n2674100

Quote:The country appears to be moving from an Islamic Republic toward a centralized military regime as the IRGC seizes more power in the weeks as the nation sustains serious damage from the bombing campaigns.

Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not made a public appearance since being appointed to his position. Iranian media reported he was wounded in the same strike that killed his father. But it is believed that if he recovers, he won’t have the same level of power as his predecessor. “Mojtaba owes his position to the Revolutionary Guards and as such he is not going to be as supreme as his father was,” Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Reuters.

...The 31 IRGC provincial commands that control the missiles, the drones, and the airspace do not answer to him.

The de facto leadership includes a three-member wartime council of IRGC-linked figures. This includes former IRGC commander Mohsen Rezaei, current IRGC commander Ahmad Vahidi, and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

IRGC military council has... sidelined President Pezeshkian from key decisions ...

I figured the Iran president had little to no actual influence or power. Probably even before Epic Fury. Just a glorified spokesman.

Masoud Pezeshkian, who took office in July 2024, is considered a moderate in Iran's political system, but he holds very little "actual" power. Real authority rests with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while the president is constrained by hardline-dominated state institutions, including the parliament and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which dictate policy.
- Google AI

Syne Wrote:If they [Iran] were negotiating in good faith,..

The art of the deal is persuading people that they want what you want them to want. Or killing them. It's a messy business on both sides.

(Apr 10, 2026 11:26 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:If they [Iran] were negotiating in good faith,..

The art of the deal is persuading people that they want what you want them to want. Or killing them. It's a messy business on both sides.

You can't make people, especially whose religion tells them to lie to infidel, be honest.
You negotiate in good faith, and if they take enough rope to hang themselves, so be it.

Syne Wrote:You can't make people, especially whose religion tells them to lie to infidel, be honest.
You negotiate in good faith, and if they take enough rope to hang themselves, so be it.

For clarity .. does your 'lie' refer the Iranian pov that there is no ceasefire until the Israelis cease firing, presenting a 10 point plan as an alternative to Trump's 15 point plan .. or something else?

(Apr 10, 2026 08:10 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 10, 2026 11:26 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:If they [Iran] were negotiating in good faith,..

The art of the deal is persuading people that they want what you want them to want. Or killing them. It's a messy business on both sides.

You can't make people, especially whose religion tells them to lie to infidel, be honest.

I'm not sure that I want to dismiss Islam that way. We have Muslim allies in this, remember. But be that as it may, I'm not really familiar with the theology of the Iranian leadership.

How do we make them be honest?

As C2 suggests, the 'carrot-and-stick' principle might be the way. Offer them something they want as an inducement, and threaten them with something they can't tolerate if they fail to agree or fail to live up to their agreement.

Trade deals and the ability to maintain and grow a strong modern economy might be the inducement. If Iran isn't bashed back into medieval times, it will inevitably be a strong, perhaps even the strongest player in the Persian gulf region. That means that it will retain the global clout that its leaders crave so much.

While all the American forces gathered around Iran, locked and loaded, threatening to reduce it to a pre-modern subsistence economy is the threat. The threat is an Iran without electricity, road transportation or its oil income. No lights, no running water, no food in the markets.

I believe that President Trump really doesn't want to unleash on Iran (the Israelis might) because it would seriously hurt the Iranian people and set Iran back many decades as they slowly rebuild. Trump has no argument with the Iranian people (or most of them at least). He would much prefer a strong and prosperous Iran that isn't a threat to its neighbors. (No nukes, no weird proxy armies in Lebanon, Iraq or Yemen.) So Trump might arguably be too willing to enter negotiations and to talk up the possibility that a deal is within reach. It's what he really wants so he keeps trying for it.

Of course President Trump's vision of Iran's future is a modernist future in which Iran cooperates with its neighbors, and that kind of future might contradict the Iranian leadership's weird apocalyptic theology. But it isn't a vision that's incompatible with Islam, just look at our friend the United Arab Emirates and the gleaming modern miracle of Dubai for proof of that.

It's a stark contrast: prosperity, cooperation and modernity for all the countries in the region (Iran, the Gulf Arabs and Israel as well) vs Iran taking a very different course and facing the threat of returning to the middle ages.

(Apr 10, 2026 09:55 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 10, 2026 08:10 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]You can't make people, especially whose religion tells them to lie to infidel, be honest.

I'm not sure that I want to dismiss Islam that way. We have Muslim allies in this, remember. But be that as it may, I'm not really familiar with the theology of the Iranian leadership.

According to Hadith (sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad), lying is permissible in three scenarios: in war, to reconcile disputes, and between husband and wife to foster affection. "War is deceit" is a recognized principle.
- Google AI

---

(Apr 10, 2026 08:50 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]

Syne Wrote:You can't make people, especially whose religion tells them to lie to infidel, be honest.
You negotiate in good faith, and if they take enough rope to hang themselves, so be it.

For clarity .. does your 'lie' refer the Iranian pov that there is no ceasefire until the Israelis cease firing, presenting a 10 point plan as an alternative to Trump's 15 point plan .. or something else?

The Trump admin never agreed to any part of their ridiculous 10-point plan, nor anything about Hezbollah. So that's all a lie, whether to save face within Iran or poison the well with Western leftists.

(Apr 10, 2026 09:55 PM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ][...] Trump has no argument with the Iranian people (or most of them at least). He would much prefer a strong and prosperous Iran that isn't a threat to its neighbors. (No nukes, no weird proxy armies in Lebanon, Iraq or Yemen.) So Trump might arguably be too willing to enter negotiations and to talk up the possibility that a deal is within reach. It's what he really wants so he keeps trying for it.

Of course President Trump's vision of Iran's future is a modernist future in which Iran cooperates with its neighbors, and that kind of future might contradict the Iranian leadership's weird apocalyptic theology. But it isn't a vision that's incompatible with Islam, just look at our friend the United Arab Emirates and the gleaming modern miracle of Dubai for proof of that.

It's a stark contrast: prosperity, cooperation and modernity for all the countries in the region (Iran, the Gulf Arabs and Israel as well) vs Iran taking a very different course and facing the threat of returning to the middle ages.

Can Iran give up its anti-Zionism fetish and the traditional Shiite rivalry with its neighboring Sunni states? Maybe, if the civilian population of Iran was put in charge. Their parents and grandparents were all gung-ho about fundamentalist passions when the Shah was kicked-out decades ago. But perhaps the younger lot has learned their lesson after living under it.

Unfortunately, though, the citizenry of Iran is like that of Russia and China. The only time they can overthrow a regime is when the ultimate result is to replace it with an equally or worse tyrannical regime. And the US can't accomplish it sans ground troops.

Everything is just delay and cripple Iran long enough for the can kicked down the road to become a Democrat POTUS's eventual problem. And it will be back to sponsoring terrorism in the region well before that.