US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5804

On June 22 2026 17:21 Falling wrote:
Oh, I fully expect it's as intended from Iran's perspective.
It's a mistake for American negotiators to agree to it.

On June 22 2026 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

I agree. It'll definitely be a relevant issue for the midterms. I think most Congressional Republicans seeking reelection will try to pivot and change the subject as frequently as possible.

It would be really interesting to see if any of them attempt to distance themselves from Trump's decisions (maybe something like "Fighting Iran and increasing gas prices are questions for the executive branch, not the legislative branch that I'm a part of"), but I have a feeling that most/all Republicans will continue to be ride-or-die with Trump even into the final two years of Trump's second term.

On June 22 2026 18:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

I agree. It'll definitely be a relevant issue for the midterms. I think most Congressional Republicans seeking reelection will try to pivot and change the subject as frequently as possible.

It would be really interesting to see if any of them attempt to distance themselves from Trump's decisions (maybe something like "Fighting Iran and increasing gas prices are questions for the executive branch, not the legislative branch that I'm a part of"), but I have a feeling that most/all Republicans will continue to be ride-or-die with Trump even into the final two years of Trump's second term.

On June 22 2026 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah right, the 'Trump wasn't even trying yet' defense.

I'm sure Putin thought the same on his 115th day of the 3 day operation.

On June 22 2026 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah right, the 'Trump wasn't even trying yet' defense.

I'm sure Putin thought the same on his 115th day of the 3 day operation.

On June 22 2026 17:21 Falling wrote:
Oh, I fully expect it's as intended from Iran's perspective.
It's a mistake for American negotiators to agree to it.

On June 22 2026 21:17 Gorsameth wrote:
Ah right, the 'Trump wasn't even trying yet' defense.

On June 22 2026 21:30 oBlade wrote:

You have overlooked a pretty obvious difference that ruins your analogy. Putin had already sent half a million soldiers to Ukraine. The only boots the US has landed in Iran so far were when we built an airbase on their own soil to rescue our downed pilots. There is absolutely potential for significant escalation still. Whether that'd be good or bad or this or that party wants it or not.

On June 22 2026 14:30 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


From Irans position the most valuable thing they can get from this deal is a realistic chance of not getting attacked again.
The second most valuable is sanctions getting dropped.
The third not getting bombed back to the stone age (because current regime doesn't care much about their people and it's a double edged sword).

Israel is not the only reason for the war but they are the biggest one. Including them and Lebanon in the deal makes sense if you are serious about a deal working out long term.

And the world can absolutely force Israel to do whatever the deal says. If the US sanctions Israel then EU would be more than happy to go along with that. If the choice stands between sanctions on a small economically irrelevant country or $250/barrel oil China and Asia would jump on it.
Taking the world economy hostage when you are a small export focused country is not the powerplay you think it is.

On June 22 2026 22:09 Godwrath wrote:

I don't think it's Iran the one occupying parts of Lebanon, so maybe American negotiators should talk to whoever is.

On June 22 2026 23:32 Gorsameth wrote:
Sure, the US has room to escalate.
But the last 20 times Trump promised the complete destruction of Iran and Iran told him to fuck off the US didn't invade.

Trump loves bullying people. If he was going to invade Iran he would have long since done so. He is being humiliated by Iran on a daily basis. But if this deal doesn't work out, this time. This time he will do it. Nvm he said the same thing the previous 20 times, this time he will do it.

No one is buying it.
Except you, apparently.

On June 22 2026 23:32 Gorsameth wrote:
Sure, the US has room to escalate.
But the last 20 times Trump promised the complete destruction of Iran and Iran told him to fuck off the US didn't invade.

Trump loves bullying people. If he was going to invade Iran he would have long since done so. He is being humiliated by Iran on a daily basis. But if this deal doesn't work out, this time. This time he will do it. Nvm he said the same thing the previous 20 times, this time he will do it.

No one is buying it.
Except you, apparently.

On June 22 2026 23:37 Billyboy wrote:


Doubleupgradeobbies has a much better analysis here because he is taking into account that Hezbollah is Iran, not Lebanon.

Clearly it is extremely important for Iran to keep its regional proxies and imperialistic goals, number one being the complete obliteration of Israel. And they are in a position to get absolutely everything they want.



Yes it is. That is why the talks are so ridiculous. Hezbollah is Iran. Israel has a ceasefire with Lebanon that they are both agreeing too (unknown and probably unlikely if Israel will fulfill its part of leaving once Hezbollah is defeated).

On June 23 2026 00:03 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:


But Hezbollah is in Lebanon. Arguably they are a greater power than the Lebanese government.

Israel wants to bomb Irans oil industry, powerplants and infrastructure turning Iran into a failed state.
Iran sees itself a local power and Hezbollah as one of its ways to project that power. Israel is their main (but not only) advesary.
Given the current actions just making peace with the US and leaving Israel out to do whatever they want makes no sense from Irans perspective. They will gain no permanent security since it's likely that Israel will just attack them anyway and maybe even rope the US back into it.

Keeping Hezbollah in Lebanon serves two purposes. First its offensive potential against Israel in any future war. Especially now with drones being a thing.
Second it's a way to test US security guarantees and how serious the US is about this deal. The may not trust the US but they absolutely can't trust Israel.
If USA is willing to reign in Israel in Lebanon it's a pretty good signal there would be consequences if Israel unilaterally decides to break a future treaty.
It also costs the US nothing and can be sold as a win at home.

Also Israel has nukes and the biggest army in the middle east so no one takes Iran wanting to destroy Israel seriously.
Not even Israel which is why they had no problem escalating this to a full on war. The only thing that matters is Iran not getting a nuke which together with an open strait is the two things the world and the US wants.
As long as Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons Israels feelings about existential safety are ridiculous.

On June 23 2026 00:13 Billyboy wrote:


I’m not sure if you forgot about Oct 7th or know that much of northern Israel is often evacuated because of threat of rocket attack. That it’s super unlikely that Iran could actually kill every single one of them without a nuke doesn’t make it ridiculous that they are scared for themselves and others.

Israel is far away from Iran, they can’t project their power that far and win. That is why they have not gone to full war with Iran.

I also disagree with you on “everything that matters”.

I understand why Iran wants Hezbollah, I also understand why Lebanon and Israel do not.

Do you not understand why Israel, Lebanon (hell most of the Middle East countries) want Irans ability to not support terrorists (their proxy armies) abroad? I get that the Us has capitulated in this like they have on so many other points. But it is no shock why Israel has not. This is far more important to them than the strait opening up.

Edit: also ballistic missile s was a big deal to Israel (and other Middle East nations). And it doesn’t seem like the nuke is even off the table yet, just promises to talk about it.

On June 23 2026 00:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:

As if on cue, even some Republican senators are occasionally standing up to Trump's anti-science / anti-environment / pro-climate-change agenda:

"On Wednesday, the Senate passed a bipartisan bill establishing that no federal funds shall be used to “decommission or descope” the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) system, a $368 million network critical to understanding climate change and marine ecosystems. The Trump administration has abandoned plans to dismantle a decade-old, deep-ocean observation network that scientists have used to track changes in the ocean and monitor marine heatwaves and coastal flooding." https://earth.org/trump-administration-drops-plans-to-dismantle-key-ocean-observation-network/

Unfortunately, Trump is still continuing to try to pressure everyone else to ignore climate change:

"The fate of a World Bank climate target is hanging in the balance as the Trump administration pressures the institution to jettison what it calls a “distortionary” and “nonsensical” policy. The bank pledged three years ago to devote 45 percent of its funding to climate-related projects by 2025. It exceeded that goal by directing $39.2 billion, or 48 percent of its financing last year, to projects with climate benefits. It came as the Trump administration has called on the institution to abandon the target and increase the number of natural gas projects in its portfolio." https://www.eenews.net/articles/us-pushes-world-bank-climate-target-to-the-brink/

"The Trump administration revealed the list of materials that the National Park Service removed from parks across the country that relate to civil rights, diverse populations, science, and the environment. ... Examples of items that were removed include signs about climate change at parks like Acadia National Park in Maine and Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge in New York; materials involving civil rights at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and at the Medgar and Myrtle Evans Home National Monument in Jackson, Mississippi; materials involving slavery at the President’s House in Philadelphia and materials on women’s rights at the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge at the Gateway National Recreation Area in New York." https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-administration-reveals-list-civil-rights-climate-change/story?id=133997786