From Aljazeera: Iran Mizan news agency has reported more details on the proposal to begin a multi-layered peace process.

“America has committed to withdrawing its military forces from Iran’s surrounding environment, whether this includes forces deployed to the region or forces stationed at bases requires negotiation,” it said.

“If a final agreement is reached within a 60-day period, this agreement will be approved in the form of a binding UN Security Council resolution,” the news report added.

  • dead [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    6 days ago

    What the US has been doing is a war crime called Perfidy, which the United Nations defines as “to kill, injure or capture an adversary” while “feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender”.

    The US has continuously pretended to agree to deals with Iran, while at the same time doing more attacks against Iran. The US is using the false premise of a ceasefire to try to gain a strategic advantage. It’s like when children are playing a game and there’s one bratty-child who always calls a “timeout” where they are losing the game.

    Think back to the founding of the United States, the colonizers made tons of bogus deals and treaties with the indigenous people and then broke those treaties and genocided the indigenous populations. The US playbook is the same now as it was then.

    • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      As I have said repeatedly to my father when discussing U.S. history, if there are no consequences to misanthropic actions, then people will continue to perform those misanthropic actions.

      The U.S. (the New World as a whole really, but especially the U.S.) was founded on misanthropy and violence. And no one in the history of the U.S. outside of some hundred slave owners, has ever been made to suffer consequences for that misanthropy. Therefore, it will continue, the U.S.'s entire history, outside of WWII, has been us breaking our treaties with our enemies, and cannibalizing our former allies for profit after we weaken them.

      And we will continue to do so unless someone else or something internally stops us.

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    6 days ago

    The game here seems to be that America says they’ll negotiate terms with Iran, but only clarifies those terms to Iranian negotiators. Then Iran goes to the press saying what America outlined, then America denies all of it and then launches another attack.

    I truly do not understand what America’s game is here. It’s gotta be something like instigating Iran into doing something egregious out of frustration, then claiming Iran is an unreliable bad actor? And negotiations can’t be concluded? It probably doesn’t help that the American admin doesn’t seem to be in full agreement about what the war is even for. There are some camps that want a full counter revolution, some that want Iran’s military destroyed, some that only want to secure oil shipping lanes, etc. It probably doesn’t help that the Zionist Entity doesn’t give a shit and simply wants America and Iran fighting with no plausible end or negotiation. The Zionists simply want global exhaustion and constant warfare.

    The problem here is that Iran doesn’t seem to be run by complete dipshits. They know exactly how much leeway they have and how much pressure they can exert, which so far seems to be quite a bit. Furthermore, Iran simply has one goal, which is existential self-defense, not some mismanaged scattering of contradictory goals. So that probably makes their war effort much more straightforward.

    • deathtoreddit@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      6 days ago

      I truly do not understand what America’s game is here. It’s gotta be something like instigating Iran into doing something egregious out of frustration, then claiming Iran is an unreliable bad actor? And negotiations can’t be concluded?

      I mean, if they did it in the 1950s conflict in Korea, why wouldn’t they with Iran, and so on

    • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 days ago

      negotiate till midterms, while iran does gestures of goodwill by letting oil through, probably ramp up oil exports in the rest of the world and then have another go at it, while iran eats shit with blockade.

    • LittleFellaNamedBoof [any]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 days ago

      I have a suspicion that the US is being told by the gulf states that it has to leave and so is telling Iran “Yeah we’re willing to leave!” as if its not out of their hands at this point.

      • LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Everybody on hexbear is really confident that just having nukes will be a magic shield of safety for Iran and the world and I really wish I could be so, so confident that the U.S. isn’t actually led by mad dogs who would go “well we learned a lot about Iranian missiles and drones the last time, now we’re ready!” and start nuclear war

        Like yea dawg i hope so but uh i think if U.S. leaders were rational they’d have realized attacking iran at this moment in time would have gone exactly this way. They needed to do this 20 years ago or not at all without China/Russia supporting it (so, not at all).

        You could say Korea not being attacked supports the idea but I don’t think there are as many reasons for the U.S. to want to topple the DPRK vs Iran and that’s without even considering Israel

        • LittleFellaNamedBoof [any]@hexbear.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          What would the alternative be though? Iran just doesn’t get nukes and the US 100% bombs them again? From Iran’s perspective at this point there’d be no real downside to getting nukes. If the US does start nuclear war then it’s just like become everyone elses problem instead of just theirs. So like yeah maybe it won’t work, but I see no reason they wouldn’t give it a go.

        • Chana [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          Nukes sure do seem like a magical shield of safety. Iran can be relentlessly harassed without them. When Libya gives them up they can be turned into a failed state in a few years.

    • LittleFellaNamedBoof [any]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 days ago

      Technically the ceasefire doesn’t exist. Since the blockade itself is a violation of it and has been ungoing. This is less of a ceasefire and more just the US saying, “We are running out of bombs so will be stopping the unending bombing for awhile.” and Iran being like “Alright.” So yeah the US position is completel nonsense which is why I try to look at what Iran is saying to see what is actually going on.

  • Sanctus@anarchist.nexus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 days ago

    They’re gonna spin this as a victory, regroup, and keep attacking people with Isn’treal to make Greater Isn’treal