Won’t Iran use the two-week ceasefire to regroup, rearm, and raise money by exporting oil?

How does the U.S. benefit from a two-week ceasefire in the war against Iran? I’m sure that some of our pilots could use a rest, but otherwise isn’t the main beneficiary our adversary? Iran’s oil industry wasn’t damaged so the regime can keep loading up tankers with crude and shipping it out to customers via the Strait of Hormuz. Thus, the Islamic Republic’s stockpile of cash will soon be back where it was. Iran can dig any buried missiles out of damaged buildings and bunkers and set them up on launchers ready to go on April 21. Iran should be able to get many of its weapons factories back into production as well since the U.S. didn’t damage Iran’s electric power grid or generating stations. Every Islamic Republic military officer or political leader who was busy running from bunker to bunker and fearful that a traitor would rat out his GPS coordinates to Israel or the U.S. can go home, shower, and relax.

Iran has already said that it isn’t going to do any of the things that the U.S. has demanded, e.g., give up making ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Is there a realistic chance that the Islamic Republic will change its mind during the two weeks of this ceasefire?

The pro-Iran/anti-Israel in DC featured by the WSJ:

Posted in War

5 thoughts on “Won’t Iran use the two-week ceasefire to regroup, rearm, and raise money by exporting oil?

  1. I don’t get it either. Type up some unconditional surrender terms, run it like Germany after WWII. What in the hell is there left to talk about? Fun quote:

    “They’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age. And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces.”

    General Curtis LeMay, on Vietnam, also went on to co-found Executive Jet Aviation (EJA) (now called NetJets).

    • Dark humor aside, I guess Iraq is better off than with Saddam. Afghanistan was a total loss, in all likelihood worse off than when we tried to spread democracy. When the Assad regime fell, Syria immediately started in-fighting. How do you deal with people that stubbornly keep supporting theocracies and oppression? Make them irrelevant and let them live in isolated squalor?

      I think the Germans wanted democracy after living with Adolf’s lunacy, although many had to wait a few decades. If the world wasn’t still so dependent on oil (which seems to outweigh their fear of the Iranians getting nukes) our U.N. “partners” probably would assist us in our attention to this matter. I really wish the U.S. would start with leading by example, currently it is not an example for anybody. It is like living in a loonie bin.

  2. How does the US benefit?

    Trump started by demanding total surrender and telling Iran he wanted to choose the next leader.

    He demanded Iran end their nuclear program and stop funding terrorism.

    He was telling the world he was negotiating with Iran, but Iran said they weren’t talking to him.

    A short while later, he was asking other countries for help in the fight, and they rebuffed him.

    Trump next ended sanctions on Iran, allowing them to make more money selling oil than ever before.

    Fast forward another 2 weeks and they’re now negotiating based on Iran’s 10-point plan:

    – Iran has control of the Strait of Hormuz, which was an international body of water before
    – Iran can charge a toll on every ship that passes through it, something it didn’t do before
    – All sanctions lifted
    – Iran can continue enrichment

    The trajectory on this was not good.

    If things continued at this rate, we have been under Sharia law by the 4th of July.

    And on the domestic front, many of his most hard-core supporters are talking about impeachment, 25th amendment, and the military just refusing orders.

    https://x.com/HQNewsNow/status/2041522919411433539

    Trump must have decided that being both a loser and aspiring war criminal was the best of many bad options.

    This is what happens when you put dim-wits in charge.

    • David: I wish that I could disagree with you! (I think I’ve been consistent that any outcome that leaves the current regime in charge of Iran and Iranian oil/electricity infrastructure intact renders the recent war irrelevant at best. Whatever material items were destroyed, e.g., missiles, can be quickly replaced. The leaders who were killed had explicitly said that they didn’t mind dying and collecting their 72 virgins, etc. The replacement leaders surely won’t be complaining about their promotions.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *