Can anyone envision an end condition for the war in Iran other than the end of President Trump’s term? I can’t. I think that the war in Iran is likely to continue as long as anyone in Iran has drones or missiles and as long as there are targets within striking range which may be a very long time, indeed. Is there one person with the practical authority to say, “The war is over; cease firing,” and have every organization and commander capable of launching a missile or drone actually stop? I don’t believe there is.
Iran in 2026 is not Japan in August 1945.
It is commonly said that this is Netanyahu’s war, which, if true, suggests the US-Iran war will continue with or without Trump as long as it serves Netanyahu’s (and Israel’s) purposes. A couple years back, about 350 members of the House and Senate (including both Parties) announced their full support for Israel. So, I think Trump is sort of irrelevant both to the Iran war and the Ukraine war He repeatedly promised to end the Ukraine war immediately and no new wars. But US Presidents are captives of other interests (some non-American and others actually anti-American), and have very little agency in foreign relations.
It could go on that long but I think it’s unlikely. We saw in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iran and in Israel’s case with Gaza and Hezbollah that on the non-American side they have been willing to go infer a long time even they were sustaining major losses and your average American believed they losing and near collapse since they had been told so by their government. People on this site were parroting Trump 3-4 months ago claiming that Iran was near collapse, ignoring the history of war in Asia and the ME. So it’s certainly possible.
My guess all along has been that they hold out until the price of oil really rockets up. Our SPR is almost functionally empty and China has been a lifesaver by using its own SPR to reduce total international oil needs. However, once ours is done I dont see the Chinese largesse going on forever.* At the point where oil is $150-$200/barrel people start to panic. Iran will have proved its point and will go for maximum returns on negotiations. They do have a somewhat narrow window. They can t build pipelines in a week or two as was suggested by someone here but they can in a year or two. Barring anything new I would expect this to resolve in maybe 3-6 months, after the mid-terms. By resolved I mean the issue of the strait. Dont seen nukes being included in any deal unless Iran gets a truly outrageous offer.
The kicker here is Israel which will want maximum destruction and the nukes gone. I suspect they convinced Trump he would have a monument and be declared a national hero if he got rid of the nukes so maybe they push him into invading. I would note that at least according to my people who are still in the reserves the approximately 50,000 troops he has put over there and are just waiting are getting pretty antsy. Might expect a few more Lincoln type events. Since the Stars and Stripes is now banned from covering those kinds of stories we likely dont hear about it.
Steve
* You gotta admit it makes for interesting choices fro Trump. Does he go back on the Chinese tariffs to keep their support or does he concede on Iran?
Steve
A hypothetical nuclear weapons program in Iran is the perfect illustration of how Israel’s interests and ours are not well aligned. A single modern nuclear weapon could lay waste to Israel. Such a weapon could hurt the U. S. but would be unlikely to produce debilitating damage.
WRT Steve’s question as I’ve said before President Trump’s thought processes are opaque to me.
Dave Schuler: A single modern nuclear weapon could lay waste to Israel.
But Iran never built a nuclear weapon, even though they almost certainly could have.
Dave Schuler: Can anyone envision an end condition for the war in Iran other than the end of President Trump’s term?
The counterpoint to that is that the United States assassinated nearly the entire civilian leadership of Iran—including the head of their theocracy—but Iran’s war effort didn’t collapse.
That’s why I characterized it as a “hypothetical nuclear weapons program”.
Old habits die hard….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d0En8iD2uVI&ra=m
“But Iran never built a nuclear weapon, even though they almost certainly could have.”
Nonsense, in your context. They were well on the way, clearly close, and would have in the absence of intervention. No one enriches uranium to 60% with any other intention.
They would have used it. Every action in the past few decades and this current engagement tells us so. We are not in Kansas anymore.
The realization that they have missiles capable of reaching Paris or London, or no doubt eventually NYC should have been sobering. I guess it was not. But the mechanics of mounting a nuke on those missiles is just an engineering problem. Suck Iranian cock all you Chamberlains if you like. Apparently my concerns over you and your loved ones exceed yours, and your political biases.
You don’t understand the theocracy. It must be exterminated. Thank god there are those with clear eyes. It got to the breaking point.
Drew: No one enriches uranium to 60% with any other intention.
Having 60% highly-enriched uranium (HEU) is nearly all (97%+) of the separation work necessary to produce a nuclear device. So, if Iran wanted to produce a nuclear device, they certainly could have done so. Instead they stopped at 60%.
But you are wrong. The other reason to have HEU is for breakout capability. That was part-and-parcel of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—which was a balancing of incentives. There is no practical way to keep Iran or most any other country from acquiring a nuclear device. What you can do is provide inducements.
Under JCPOA, Iran gave up their HEU in exchange for sanctions relief. That increased their breakout time from a few weeks to several months or more. That would have given the West time to respond if Iran began to produce HEU again, but gave (or so they thought) Iran time to deploy a nuclear device if facing an existential threat.
The United States reneged on the deal, assassinated Iran’s top civilian leadership, damaged the international cooperation necessary to contain Iran, undermined American credibility, and left their own republican principles in tatters. Other than that—good job!
The argument presently going on illuminates the asymmetry between the U. S. position and the Israeli position. An Israeli leader may indeed find the risks posed by a prospective Iranian nuclear weapon (“breakout capability”) intolerable and attack Iran justifiably on that basis. An American leader might not. The U. S. does not shoulder the responsibility of guaranteeing Israel’s continued existence let alone safety.
Dave Schuler: The U. S. does not shoulder the responsibility of guaranteeing Israel’s continued existence let alone safety.
The use of a nuclear device in war would be a global disaster, as would the destruction of Israel. The United States has a vested interest in avoiding that outcome.
However, Iran had given up their HEU. Their supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, had declared nuclear weapons un-Islamic. But he was assassinated by the United States. That, and that the United States broke the nuclear agreement and suddenly attacked them, has probably unleashed more militant forces. Why shouldn’t they get a nuclear device. It works for America. It works for North Korea. Trump says he gets love letters from Kim.
Dave Schuler: An Israeli leader may indeed find the risks posed by a prospective Iranian nuclear weapon (“breakout capability”) intolerable and attack Iran justifiably on that basis.
There is no practical way to stop Iran (short of regime change or occupation) from getting a nuclear weapon if that is what they want.
How do you know that? You only know about the HEU and the nuclear research sites that had been revealed or discovered.
And you are using the phrase “vested interest” in far too loose a fashion. A vested interest implies a right to manage the risks. We have an interest. It is not a vested interest.
Dave Schuler: How do you know that?
It still comes down to this: After the United States broke the nuclear agreement, Iran enriched to 60% HEU, meaning they could have built a nuclear device at any time. But they didn’t.
That is not proof. Those are claims. Neither the State Department nor the IAEA know what they do not know. It bears mentioning that the IAEA has admitted as much.
Dave Schuler: That is not proof.
It’s evidence. Strong evidence in the sense that HEU is hard to produce and valuable, so not easily surrendered. Strong evidence in the sense that the industrial production of HEU is difficult to hide, especially under an IAEA inspections regime. Strong evidence in the sense that they didn’t produce a nuclear device when they could have, indicating their motive was deterrence, which they thought they had achieved with the JCPOA.
You argue that
IraqIran could have WMD based on a supposed lack of evidence and contrary to the strong evidence we do have.How do you know Iran has HEU? How do we know anything if not from evidence.
Reasonable confidence would have required the JCPOA to allow inspections that were not-preannounced at any site at will. It did not.
The revelation that Iran has at least one site where HEU is produced that the Iranians did not disclose on their own is evidence that they have not disclosed all of their nuclear enrichment sites. We had such a revelation almost 20 years ago according to IAEA statements.
The problem with your argument is that if you cant trust them even with inspections that have always been the gold standard, there is no way to be sure other than to invade, conquer and occupy. 20 years ago was well before the JCPOA. Non-preannounced inspections would have meant that Iran accepted those when no other country has done so and from their POV looked suspiciously like an attempt at ferreting out any non-nuclear military secrets. It would have been a unique loss of sovereignty. Note that when they did try to hide a site prior to the JCPOA, it was found. The sites arent that easy to keep hidden.
Anyway, according to Israel they have been able to make bombs since the mid 90s. According to our intel since the mid 2000s, yet they never have. They arent that hard to make, the delivery system being more difficult. They have publicly stated they dont want to make a bomb. Based on their words and actions it looks like they dont want one. The real issue is that Israel doesnt want them to be able to make missiles that can hit Israel. That’s why the JCPOA got terminated and why we are at war now. So Trump can be declared a hero and we destroy their ability to make missiles.
Steve
Dave Schuler: The revelation that Iran has at least one site where HEU is produced that the Iranians did not disclose on their own is evidence that they have not disclosed all of their nuclear enrichment sites.
And you know this how?
Undeclared Iranian nuclear activity demonstrates attempted concealment. However, it does not demonstrate that IAEA verification was incapable of detecting that concealment. Indeed, the IAEA’s safeguards experience demonstrates the opposite: Since 2003, IAEA sampling has detected HEU particles at Iranian facilities and its investigations identified failures in Iran’s declarations.
That’s how you know.
Dave Schuler: We had such a revelation almost 20 years ago….
According to whom?
Dave Schuler: according to IAEA statements.
And that’s precisely the point: the IAEA is the verification mechanism.
Can Iran be trusted? No. Can America be trusted? Apparently not.
The relevant question isn’t whether Iran can be trusted. It’s whether independent verification can detect violations when Iran can’t be trusted.
steve: They arent that hard to make, the delivery system being more difficult.
True, but even a crude bomb test exploded underground is a substantial deterrent. Not only might the nuclear device be loaded on a missile or plane (it’s technically difficult but much harder to police from afar), but an invading army might happen to step on an atomic mine.
steve: They have publicly stated they dont want to make a bomb. Based on their words and actions it looks like they dont want one.
That should probably be past tense. There have always been those within Iran who would argue for a nuclear deterrence. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, argued against the possession of nuclear weapons as non-Islamic. The United States assassinated Khamenei in February 2026. This will almost certainly have led to a reassessment of nuclear deterrence and a lot of “I told you so’s” by the Iranian hard-right and military leadership.
A good example is the IAEA’s disclosure of the existence of the Fordow site in 2009. It was reported in major media outlets and covered extensively by Iran Watch.
The actual history of Ford clauds that issue. Best sources indicate that they started building it in 2006 and then notified the IAEA in 2009 before they started processing nuclear fuel which Iran claims met their agreements with the IAEA. The IAEA thinks they should have been notified in 2003 when Iran decided they should build the place. So it’s really not the case that Iran was secretly processing fuel and in fact they notified the IAEA they had built the site.
Per several sources Iran acted in accordance with older agreements. Again, according the 3 separate AIs and several Google sources Iran had not agreed to cooperate with the new guidelines in the new agreements.
Steve