We’re now surrending to Iran?

A couple of days ago, Donald Trump said that we would start doing to Iran what FDR and Truman did to Germany and Japan, i.e., attack the electric power generation that allows an enemy nation to run its weapons industry. Today, however, we learn that the U.S. is actually planning to surrender to Iran. “Trump Says U.S. Will Postpone Strikes on Iranian Energy Infrastructure” (WSJ):

President Trump said the U.S. military would postpone strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for five days following “productive” talks between Washington and Tehran.

In a Truth Social post written in all caps, Trump said the two countries had “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.” Trump said that based on those discussions, which he said would continue this week, he had asked the Pentagon to hold off on energy-related strikes that he had threatened. U.S. stock indexes jumped after markets opened and Brent crude futures dropped nearly 10%.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry denied Tehran was in talks with the U.S., according to state media, saying there was “no dialogue” with Washington.

Earlier, Iran threatened wider attacks on infrastructure—including fuel, tech and desalination facilities—used by the U.S. in the region if its energy sites were hit. Iran also warned it would lay mines across the entire Persian Gulf if its coasts or islands were attacked. The escalation of threats came after Trump demanded at the weekend that Iran fully open the Strait of Hormuz, saying in a social-media post late Saturday that the U.S. would “obliterate” Iranian power plants if the regime failed to act within 48 hours.

This wouldn’t be the first time that we’ve paid $1 trillion/year to run our military and also surrendered, but some of the above is confusing. We’ve been told that the Iranian navy was sunk and that we control the airspace over and around Iran. Boats capable of laying mines would seem to be too big to hide anywhere. How would the Iranians have the ability to “lay mines across the entire Persian Gulf” if our claims of having destroyed their navy are true? If there are a few small boats left, why can’t the planes and drones flying over the Iranian coastline find and destroy them?

There is also, of course, the obvious inconsistency of us saying that we’ve negotiated our surrender with the Iranian government and the government of Iran saying that the U.S. hasn’t yet surrendered to them.

Presumably any proposed agreement would (1) leave the current Islamic Republic officials in charge of Iran, just as they have been for 47 years, (2) leave Iran with its oil production infrastructure intact so that it can keep funding its weapons production, and (3) leave Iran with its electric power infrastructure intact so that it can keep running all of the weapons factories that it wants to run, including uranium enrichment, short-range ballistic missile (that can reach the Islamic Republic of London), and peaceful nuclear weapons factories. I can’t think of a way to summarize this other than “U.S. surrenders.” Maybe the Iranians will provide a paper promise not to build nuclear weapons or longer-range ballistic missiles, but what good would that be from a regime that has promised and sworn “Death to America”?

There is no way to learn about any U.S. military successes from reading our media (see We are being absolutely crushed by Iran (NYT)). The U.S. military itself doesn’t seem to have a lot of recent success to report. Here’s a tweet from last night that describes an attack from earlier in March:

If we are currently doing some damage to the Islamic Republic’s military capabilities shouldn’t CENTCOM be able to report more recent strikes?

Readers: What can we make of the above other than “U.S. surrenders”? And if we are forced to surrender, what is the point of paying $1 trillion/year for our military?