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:
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.
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.)
And now everyone knows $50,000 drones can keep aircraft carriers at bay!
I’m sure that gave our enemies no motivation to ramp production.
@JT, it is quite opposite, US air power was all over Iran and all attacks on US fleet failed, including a barrage of over 100 anti-ship missiles and drones, which was intercepted.
Think that Taiwan sleeps a little deeper now.
Yes, but Trump needs the two weeks to find a new distraction from the Epstein files
Phil why are you always talking about blowing up Iran’s oil and electricity capacities? Do you really think it is that simple? Do you not see that that would create a refugee crisis that would flood and overwhelm all of Iran’s neighbors as Iranians flee desperately?
Come on. We are the world’s superpower here. We need to think of the stability of the entire region too.
Anon: Any country that is an industrial power can quickly become a military power. The stated goal of the war was to eliminate Iran’s ability to project military power beyond its borders. The only way to do that is to reduce Iran’s industrial power.
Your comment seems to assume that Iran’s oil revenue is used to increase the average Iranian’s standard of living. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-825943 says “Iran’s upcoming budget plan reveals that more than half of the revenue from oil and gas exports will be allocated to the nation’s armed forces, according to a report by Iran International on Thursday. … Meanwhile, 42.5% of the remaining funds will support the government’s operational expenses, and 6.5% will be allocated for “special projects,” the report indicated. … In practice, the government will provide oil, priced in euros, to the armed forces, which can then sell it on international markets, the report detailed. With oil priced at €57.5 per barrel, this equates to a daily provision of 583,000 barrels to the military.”
Persians managed to support themselves without oil and electricity for 5,000 years. Disabling power plants doesn’t mean the country ends up in the “no electricity” situation it was i from 4000 BC to 1879. It means that the remaining electricity production gets used for the basics, such as pumping water, and that there isn’t enough to run factories creating thousands of ballistic missiles.
As for “the stability of the entire region”, I guess that depends on whether you think the January 2026 situation was stable. Every year prior to 2026, except for during the war with Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran added to its missile stockpile, added more accurate and longer-range missiles, increased its inventory of attack drones, enriched more uranium, and got closer to a working atomic bomb.
> We need to think of the stability of the entire region
https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2026/04/05/shout-out-to-igor-sikorsky-after-the-f-15-pilot-wso-rescue-in-iran/#comment-415504
> Why should we spend even $1 for European stability?
Makes you think. What dogs (or roosters) does the U.S. have in this game, if we have none in Europe? Why is it the responsibility of the U.S. to enforce the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and depose oppressors in Iran? Everyone else stepped back and made us the policemen of the globe? All the responsibility, all the blame, all the cost, and little help from “friends” and “allies”. Sounds kind of like being a cop or an ICE agent.
The US has no interest in people who chant “Death to America” while building ballistic missiles and enriching uranium? What would the U.S. military be used for if not dropping bombs on such a country?
I can’t think of any comparable situation related to Europe. NATO was created to defend against Russia. But Russians aren’t changing “Death to America”. Non-Muslim Russians don’t say that they are happy to be martyred because they’ll get 72 virgins in Jannah and that makes potential military aggressive by Russia much easier to deter.
> people who chant “Death to America”
We could ask Iran the same question I did to my high school girlfriend that dumped me, “What can I do to make you love me again?” You know, while we are giving them two weeks to rebuild. Russia has working ICBMs pointed at locations near my house, I think. Several European countries have nukes, what if their countries go rogue (*cough* Nazi Germany *cough*)?
I think my disagreement was with “we are the world’s superpower” -> “we should be the primary payors for it’s upkeep and security”. I thought that is what NATO, the U.N., our NPT (which Iran signed, I believe) partners, etc. were there for, to help us — outside of their current dislike for our leadership.
> *cough* Nazi Germany *cough*
Although, as a long time reader of this blog, I realize it might be just as likely that a rogue nation in Europe would be of the same persuasion as Iranians, rather than Aryans, this time.
“No one ever listens to people who say, ‘No one ever listens to me.'” — me.
“It’s all connected.” — Greta T.
Yes, we already have a NATO member (Turkey) that is allied with Hamas, which we’ve classified as an enemy (labeled a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in 1997). The idea that U.S. troops in Europe can prevent a European democracy from electing a fascist dictator has already been proven wrong. Democrats say that Viktor Orbán is a fascist dictator and he was elected by Hungarians at a time when Hungary was already a NATO member. Similarly, when Europeans elect Islamic theocracies to rule their countries, preventing those theocrats from taking office is not part of the NATO mission.
America still has some of the spirit I saw in my dad when I was a boy. He was always complaining about paying more than his fair share and doing crap other people wouldn’t to keep things working. Yet he still got up every morning, went to work, put up with idiots, payed outrageous taxes, took the blame for other people’s mistakes, and did what needed to be done. It’s called manhood, lest we forget.
“Won’t Iran use the two-week ceasefire to regroup, rearm, and raise money by exporting oil?” – it obviously will do all of that, unless US has some secret plan for the regime change in Iran.
Bush destroyed infrastructure in Irag and Obama destroyed infrastructure in Lybia with a lot of less drama and with universal domestic political and European political and military support. New times call for new leaders I guess.
It seemed like the most sensible thing was tried and then barely talked about – arming the Iranians. Some article or other mentioned that we tried to do it but the Kurds kept all the weapons? That’s it? Why can’t we airdrop a million guns? What would that cost? A billion dollars? The IDF must have some idea where the most fruitful locations for that are.
“Won’t Iran use the two-week ceasefire to regroup, rearm, and raise money by exporting oil?”
It works equally well in other direction – gives time to restock and, critically, discover new targets. After all what they were shooting at? All viable known targets should have been destroyed by now.
One thing which surprised me how well can Iran guide their munitions. Are they using Chinese or Russian satnav? Why it’s still operational in the region?
And I don’t get why they allowed Iran to sell any oil – it seems reverse is the logical thing to do.
SK: Agreed. It is crazy to let an enemy have surplus cash, which is 100% guaranteed to be funneled into military power. I guess the Palestinians are the best example of this. All of their day-to-day needs are funded by US and EU taxpayers and that enables them to put 100% of their GDP into military and fight for over 75 years.
Didn’t take long for Iran to go back to blockading oil exports. It was just long enough to wait out Trump’s bluff. Either the Iranian government or the Iranian people sound well prepared to die for Allah. It’s not clear from any scant news reporting if the civilians are supporting the regime’s kamikaze agenda or just the rulers, who are obviously alive & well despite every effort.
But stock markets are up today and oil is down. Strange. Guess Iran just added a tollbooth to the strait of Hormuz.
The question should be: Why are nations around the world allowing Iran to block the Strait of Hormuz? And by doing so, isn’t Iran effectively at war with all other nations?
Under international norms, countries can claim up to 12 nautical miles (~14 miles) from their coastline. At its narrowest point, the Strait is about 21 miles wide, yet Iran is controlling the entire Strait and blocking ships from passing through. That, in itself is an act of war against nations that rely on that passage.
You would expect those affected nations to respond more forcefully, but instead they are bowing to Iran’s actions and demand, which, in my opinion, is the same as telling Iran yes, you can develop nuclear weapons.
George: I don’t think that the 12 nm number is relevant. There is a special rule for “strait used for international navigation”. If sea level were to fall, as Greta Thunberg (#FreePalestine) assures it that it won’t, and the strait narrowed to just 2 nm the countries on either side still wouldn’t be able to block it off or restrict navigation.
@Philip, I wasn’t aware until now that the UN classifies the Strait of Hormuz as a “strait used for international navigation.” So why isn’t the UN taking actions against Iran? I get it that the UN cannot declare war, but it can assemble and approve measures, including resolutions addressing Iran’s actions in blocking the Strait, such as authorize the use of military force. But like you said, I guess they are too busy listening to Greta.
[1] https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm
And this just in: “500 Irish petrol stations could have ‘no fuel by end of night’” [1].
The interesting part is at the very end:
“We need it capped,” he said. “We need carbon tax to be gone. We just need the government to step in and help us because we can’t do this any longer.”
So this isn’t really about a shortage of fuel, but rather rising costs, driven by concerns around Iran’s so-called “blocking” of the Strait. But did Iran *really* block the Strait? There isn’t any proof of that, or even of an attempt to do so by Iran. So why is the Strait “blocked”?
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy814wypp5go