(7 hours ago)C C Wrote: SUMMARY: If Trump had gotten out of this conflict within the six weeks max as originally claimed, he would have just been viewed as an arrogant azzo who messed up traffic through the Strait and then aloofly left. But by hanging around to fix it he's now going to be deemed both that and the loser who ultimately facilitated Iran's formally recognized, official control over the passage. (When this dawdling, ineffectual strategy and its forces finally pull out due to exhaustion of resources and the unpopularity of the war -- whether with or without an agreement.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Iran thinks the US will let it keep the Strait of Hormuz
https://apnews.com/article/iran-us-war-strait-hormuz-goals-diplomacy-77d91b276db6d749711619b0aa1c5c3f

EXCERPTS: They are betting that military pressure will ultimately force the United States to accept their control over the crucial waterway for global energy — and that time is on their side.

They know about the diminishing stockpiles of key U.S. weapons such as advanced missile interceptors. They know the war is deeply unpopular with Americans. They know that as long as the strait is largely closed, the price of gas and other goods will stay high ahead of U.S. congressional elections in November. They know that trying to open it by force would be costly and may require American ground troops. They know their Houthi allies in Yemen could widen the war and disrupt another major trade route.

By that logic, U.S. President Donald Trump has no choice but to capitulate.

[...] Iran says it is close to reaching a deal with Oman to manage the strait, which runs between the countries. But on Saturday, Tehran said the strait will not open until the U.S. “corrects its behavior,” saying it must permanently end the war, lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports and withdraw its military from the area. It also must “completely compensate” Iran for war damage, lift sanctions and “unconditionally” release frozen assets.

There was no White House comment. A deal with Oman would formalize Tehran’s control over what had been an open international waterway before the war, one that carried a fifth of the world’s traded oil and gas.

[...] Abdolreza Davari, an analyst who once advised former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Iran’s effective control of the strait has given it leverage with the U.S. and regional countries that can help guarantee its security.

“More than revenue from the strait, Iran wants to confirm its management and sovereignty over the strait,” he said by phone from Tehran. Formal control over even part of the strait would be a clear win for Iran and a loss for the U.S., which has yet to accomplish some of its various and shifting goals in the war.

(6 hours ago)geordief Wrote: I was wondering if there had been American pressure on Oman  to prevent it from going along with any kind of joint agreement with Iran over the Straits.

Is Oman too wealthy to be amenable to any bribery from Trump?

Has it cast in its lot with Iran because it has lost faith that the US can protect them against attacks from Iran if it continues to support American policy in the region?

(6 hours ago)C C Wrote:

(6 hours ago)geordief Wrote: I was wondering if there had been American pressure on Oman  to prevent it from going along with any kind of joint agreement with Iran over the Straits.
--‐-‐---‐--‐
‐‐----‐-----

But the latest (a few days ago) was ironically to get Oman to concede to allowing Iran to have impermanent control of the Strai

(5 hours ago)geordief Wrote:

(6 hours ago)C C Wrote:

(6 hours ago)geordief Wrote: I was wondering if there had been American pressure on Oman  to prevent it from going along with any kind of joint agreement with Iran over the Straits.
--‐-‐---‐--‐
‐‐----‐-----

But the latest (a few days ago) was ironically to get Oman to concede to allowing Iran to have impermanent control of the Strait

A surprise to me (obviously not following events closely enough)

Was any rationale given for that intervention?

( I note the use of "impermanent".That must be a clue ,I guess.)

A play for time?

(5 hours ago)C C Wrote:

(5 hours ago)geordief Wrote:

(6 hours ago)C C Wrote:

(6 hours ago)geordief Wrote: I was wondering if there had been American pressure on Oman  to prevent it from going along with any kind of joint agreement with Iran over the Straits.
--‐-‐---‐--‐
‐‐----‐-----

But the latest (a few days ago) was ironically to get Oman to concede to allowing Iran to have impermanent control of the Strait

A surprise to me (obviously not following events closely enough)

Was any rationale given for that intervention?

( I note the use of "impermanent".That must be a clue ,I guess.)

A play for time?

Giving the dog a bone to coax it and all parties into another ceasefire and reload of the previous pointless negotiations that always went nowhere.

U.S. nears Hormuz deal: "Trump aims to give temporary control of the Strait of Hormuz to Iran as part of a diplomatic effort to resume negotiations over a nuclear deal and establish a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran. This arrangement is intended to reduce tensions and prevent further military conflict in the region."