Will Iran regime fall, or just another umpteenth fail of protesters? (rerun hobbies)

[Syne]

Based on reporting from March 2026, Donald Trump did not literally state that Barack Obama personally started a war with Iran 47 years ago (which would have been roughly 1979, when Obama was a high school student).
Instead, the phrase stems from a mix of rhetoric where Trump argued that the Iranian regime has been "at war" with the US for 47 years—dating back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and embassy hostage crisis—and subsequently blamed his predecessors, including Obama, for failing to stop it.
- Google AI

Trump didn't say Obama started any "Iran war" 47 years ago.

He said: “For 47 years, no president was willing to do what I’m doing” — meaning strong action now amid tensions since the 1979 Iranian Revolution/hostage crisis (exactly 47 years back from 2026).
- Grok

So as usual, MR is the one lying. 9_9

[Syne]

Why the Iranian regime are the real Nazis.

[Image: qszYabS.md.jpg]

Still wanting to exterminate the Jews and everything.

[Magical Realist]

Isn't insisting you made imaginary phone calls one of the first signs of senility?

"Trump is out here bragging about “very good, productive conversations” with a “top person” in Iran and using that claim as his excuse for pausing strikes on Iranian energy targets for five days. But within hours, Iran’s parliament speaker and foreign ministry flatly said there have been no talks with the U.S. and called his story “fake news” meant to game oil markets and buy time militarily.

Even Sen. Chris Van Hollen is now saying out loud that Trump is “lying” about negotiations, because there’s simply no evidence the sweeping deal he’s teasing actually exists.

This isn’t peace diplomacy; it’s a president spinning a war narrative that our own allies, Iran’s leadership, and independent reporting all contradict."

[Syne]

If you believe Iran, you're a moron. That's how far the TDS has rotted your brain.
What, a Democrat is saying Trump is lying? How gullible can you be?

[Yazata]

B-1 bombers leaving RAF Fairford in England, headed for Iran

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/BSjhdRAT9NY

[Magical Realist]

If you believe Iran, you're a moron. That's how far the TDS has rotted your brain.
What, a Democrat is saying Trump is lying? How gullible can you be?

And you're a dumbass if you believe one word your Liar In Chief says..

[Syne]

If you believe Iran, you're a moron. That's how far the TDS has rotted your brain.
What, a Democrat is saying Trump is lying? How gullible can you be?

And you're a dumbass if you believe one word your Liar In Chief says..

See how extreme you are. "if you believe ONE WORD." 9_9

[Magical Realist]

If you believe Iran, you're a moron. That's how far the TDS has rotted your brain.
What, a Democrat is saying Trump is lying? How gullible can you be?

And you're a dumbass if you believe one word your Liar In Chief says..

See how extreme you are. "if you believe ONE WORD." 9_9

That's what I said. He's a pathological liar. Do I actually need to post the massive list of all the lies he's told?

[Yazata]

As American ground forces (Army and Marines) gather to do... something, Iran may or may not (finally) want to make a deal. It's complicated though...

The Iranian government is in chaos. Some of them (the moderates) want to deal. Others (the IRGC and the hard-liners) believe that they are fighting a holy war and say no deal. So even if some Iranians agree to a deal, it's unclear if they could convince the hard-liners to accept it.

Reportedly the Americans have been talking indirectly with the Iranians through Turkish, Egyptian and Pakistani intermediaries. The Iranian on the other end of the game of telephone is said to be the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Except that Ghalibaf put out a statement that it's all fake news and he wouldn't negotiate with Iran's enemies. Which may or may not be true, since he might be killed by the hard liners if they thought that he was. It's unclear what kind of support Ghalibaf has inside Iran.

But talk is that they were on the verge of setting up face-to-face negotiations in Pakistan for later this week. Iran has supposedly agreed to no nuclear weapons and to a five-year halt on their ballistic missile program. The problem is that they have made similar concessions before, but the small-print always allowed them to continue developing their uranium enrichment capabilities. The devil's in the verification and enforcement details.

The hard-liners may or may not have taken control of whatever talks were happening (whether direct or mediated through Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan) Iran's new hard-line conditions appear to be:

1. US pays reparations for damage to Iran. This will almost certainly be rejected by Washington, though the US might offer trade deals that could be lucrative for Iran (conditional of course, on Iran agreeing to American demands).

2. Iran gets control of the Strait of Hormuz and charges a toll for any ship traveling in and out of the Persian gulf. Again, it's difficult to imagine the US possibly agreeing to that. It would wreck our relationship with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, all of whom export their oil through the Strait.

3. Guarantees the war won't start again. The US might conceivably agree with that one conditionally: The war won't restart as long as Iran's nuclear and missile programs remain halted.

4. Israel halts attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon. That's up to Israel. It's possible that Israel might agree conditionally on Hezbollah halting its attacks on Israel.

5. Lifting all sanctions on Iran. The US would probably agree, again conditional on the end of Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

6. Iran keeps its missile program with no limitations. Nope. That's probably a deal killer.

It's notable that Iran's new demands don't include keeping its nuclear program. But they might insist on keeping whatever uranium enrichment capability they still have without any strong safeguards. Or, on the other hand, the program might be so bashed at this point that they might not think they are losing anything by giving it up. And if they really already have enough weapons-grade uranium for some atomic bombs, they might be willing to give up some enrichment centrifuges that might already be wrecked.

But again, in the Middle East people do like to say one thing in public and another in private. There's some indication that the Iranians have been more conciliatory in their conversations with Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan.

It's hard to say at the moment whether there's division inside the Iranian government (very possible given the beating it's taken) or whether it's a negotiating tactic.

[Syne]

And you're a dumbass if you believe one word your Liar In Chief says..

See how extreme you are. "if you believe ONE WORD." 9_9

That's what I said. He's a pathological liar. Do I actually need to post the massive list of all the lies he's told?

Nah, you still believe a lot of thoroughly debunked bullshit. You never learn. Another symptom of TDS brain rot.