Not only for them, but also for Iran, which becomes a world power through control of 20 percent of global oil flows and an asymmetric toolkit that endurance renders unstoppable. Hormuz now exerts real control, and the potential activation of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait positions the Resistance to wield a powerful geo-economic veto over global energy flows. One can, of course, forget about such a thing called US 5th Fleet, a thing of the past.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Iran Reportedly Warns Apple is Among Potential Targets
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jon9091
macrumors 6502
Under President Obama:
•The Strait of Hormuz was open because it was never closed.
•Limitations were placed on Iran's uranium enrichment.
•Iran agreed not to to make nuclear weapons.
•International inspectors were permitted into Iran to confirm full compliance.
Under Trump's ceasefire:
•The Strait of Hormuz will open but under direct Iranian control, possibly with a $2 million fee extracted from each vessel passing through. That toll would be split between Iran and Oman. The Strait was only closed because Trump started his war.
•Iran does not have to guarantee a limit on uranium enrichment.
•Iran does not guarantee that it will never develop nuclear weapons and there will be no international inspectors.
And those are just the top line items for Trump's ceasefire. He also stated that Iran's "10 point proposal" is a "workable basis on which to negotiate."
If Trump ratifies that proposal he will have to:
•Lift all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran.
•Withdraw the U.S. military entirely from the Middle East.
•End all attacks on Iran and its allies.
•Release frozen Iranian assets.
•The Strait of Hormuz was open because it was never closed.
•Limitations were placed on Iran's uranium enrichment.
•Iran agreed not to to make nuclear weapons.
•International inspectors were permitted into Iran to confirm full compliance.
Under Trump's ceasefire:
•The Strait of Hormuz will open but under direct Iranian control, possibly with a $2 million fee extracted from each vessel passing through. That toll would be split between Iran and Oman. The Strait was only closed because Trump started his war.
•Iran does not have to guarantee a limit on uranium enrichment.
•Iran does not guarantee that it will never develop nuclear weapons and there will be no international inspectors.
And those are just the top line items for Trump's ceasefire. He also stated that Iran's "10 point proposal" is a "workable basis on which to negotiate."
If Trump ratifies that proposal he will have to:
•Lift all primary and secondary sanctions on Iran.
•Withdraw the U.S. military entirely from the Middle East.
•End all attacks on Iran and its allies.
•Release frozen Iranian assets.
Had you told the IRGC a year ago they'd accomplish these goals they would never have believed you. A couple hundred million a day in free toll booth money to fund their nuclear program!
Alameda
macrumors 68000
If you know exactly how it works you would not have written that the U.S. sends money to Israel, because we do not.
When I last visited Israel, the Israelis are already considering cutting it off anyway. It amounts to two percent of their GNP so they can manage without it.
jon9091
macrumors 6502
So…by me saying “the US can stop sending Israel billions of dollars every year.” you took that as a huge palate of cash for them to go shopping with? 🤣
And it’s great that that don’t really need our assistance. I’m sure when it stops the outrage will be non-stop.
Madhatter32
macrumors 68000
Maybe. At this point I would not be surprised if the US approaches Russia and Ukraine with a proposal for peace upon pre-war borders in exchange for an American withdrawal from NATO subject to Congressional approval. US could maintain its bases bilaterally. Everyone might benefit -- US/Ukraine/Russia and Europe too as they become more independent in their own self-defense.
I mean, I wouldn’t be surprised at any kind of inane proposal from the regime. But neigther Russia nor Congress would approve of that.
Oil, gas and other goods passing through the Strait of Hormuz must be paid for in Chinese yuan. Then what?
Do you think, would anyone agree with anything US says as the way things are?
Scepticalscribe
macrumors Haswell
The problem is that the US has less - a lot less - credibility than it had.
It is no longer seen as credible, trustworthy or reliable, and it is not run by serious people committed to the idea of public service and the public good.
If, for example, you were one of the Gulf States that had been busy "doing business" with the US, would you feel better off, or safer, this week? Would you feel that you had got your money's worth? How you you feel that your main regional rival - theologically as well as philosophically and militarily - has come out of this conflict a lot stronger, while your position, has become a lot weaker or less secure? Would you trust the judgment of the US on anything, even their own self-interest?
Last edited:
On that note, it appears the ceasefire may already be dead.
Israel launched a massive attack on Lebanon. Iran is responding by closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Madhatter32
macrumors 68000
Granted -- the Gulf states have a huge problem. However, I doubt any potential diminution of US credibility in the region negates the fact that the Gulf states were brutally attacked without cause by a radical belligerent regime, which lest we forget is a regional and ideological competitor. I think it more likely that they gravitate closer to their American ally although I admit that the Chinese may benefit. It would be hard for me to believe that any of the Gulf states would turn to the Russians for a number of reasons -- one of which is that the Russian do not have the capacity or technical expertise (and its international standing and reputation for reliability has been destroyed) to provide security.
Did anyone hear of an agreement between Iran and Israel on a ceasefire? Or, even that Iran will speak to Israel at all?
bcortens
macrumors 65816
The Gulf states hosted US bases being used for attacks on Iran and some were considered US allies. The US operations in Iran were aided by the agreements of these states to host US bases and cooperate with the US.
Madhatter32
macrumors 68000
That is factually incorrect ... but even if true it would not justify attacking a sovereign nation anywhere in the world.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
I think there may have only been a "concept of a ceasefire"
bcortens
macrumors 65816
Upon further research it does look like you're correct, these countries attempted to maintain neutrality by not letting the US launch attacks from the bases within their territories.
Durable ceasefire will be presented along with the health care plan that was promised in 2015.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Along with overdue refunds from folks who were scammed by Trump University
Don is such an absolute piece of garbage.
jon9091
macrumors 6502
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Hey, with Strait of Hormuz passage payments in BTC, who knows who that will even go to.
This could be yet ANOTHER grift by this absolute POS and his cadre.
Alameda
macrumors 68000
According to the Muslims, the inhabitants were all Muslim. Got it.What the effing uck are you talking about? The Ottoman Empire kept records meticulously. In the 1700’s the area was mostly Muslim. This is common knowledge - do I really need to google sources for you? History started before Mark Twain you know.
Edit: I went and googled it for you anyway, although I will admit that I did not read the source, but am counting on an AI summary:
Perhaps I’m tainted by growing up in a country with a functional education system.
Claiming no historical records exist from the 1700’s is mindblowing, and I have to revert to my previous comment about American arrogance.
I never claimed that. I specifically stated that this conflict will never be resolved, because the claims to the area goes back thousands of years. As long as people make claims about the land based on something written in two thousand year old books, you will never resolve it. I don’t make claims about who should own the land. My claim is: Both sides are acting horrendously, and it will take both sides to fix it. One side acting like they are the good guys and the others are the bad guys will not fix anything.
Both sides can claim the land, based on how long you go back. I’m just saying that going back 150 years and basing your viewpoint on that is indegenious when the conflict spans thousands.
I did not give anyone a pass. I stated several times that a conflict can have two bad actors. The correct response to that, as a civilized nation, is not to also become bad. It is to raise the flag of good even higher. Which is NOT what the US has been doing, by openly killing 5000+ people to earn money on oil.
Do you know why? Because the Muslims were colonizers. That is why Constantinople is called Istanbul.
The book is interesting. Page 402 in particular:
“The sultans having arrogated to themselves, by way of conquest, the property of all the lands of Syria, the inhabitants can no longer pretend to any real, or even any personal property. When a father dies, the inheritance reverts to the Sultan, or his delagage, and the children can only redeem the succession by a considerable sum of money. Hence arises an indifference to landed estates, which proves fatal to agriculture.” Such was the situation in Palestine under Ottoman rule until the British came into power.
The simple truth is this: Both Jews and Muslims have lived there for a very long time, and there was no way that the Jews living under Muslim rule would be treated with equality, which has been proven over and over, so therefore, they wanted and need a small, Jewish state. And when it happened, the Arabs completely lost their marbles. LOOK AT THE MAP. It’s simple: The Arabs had all the power in the region and they were certain they could militarily defeat a 1 day old country.
Calling Israel the “colonizer” amidst all of that colonization is ridiculous. And Muslim leaders have long been clear about it: They believe in Muslim law ruling over the entirety of Northern Africa and the Mideast. The Israeli conflict is based on Muslim religion.
Last edited:
Alameda
macrumors 68000
How old is Croatia? How old is Pakistan? How old is Bangladesh? How old is India? How old is Kenya? How old is the Czech Republic? How old is Jordan?
I could continue for a very long time with counties younger than Israel. And most of them had border disputes and refugee issues.
The difference with Israel is Judaism. Israel’s neighbors cannot stand the fact that there is a Jewish country among them.