[Macros]

Above.

Strikes.

Boycotts, hit their wallets.

We are digressing, this is back into US pantomime thread territory.

A friendly mod can shift my diateibes over if they want.

Short version those no kings marches are more like Macys day parades now than a protest

[Grief]

Think the past comments are fair game to stay in this thread for now; it's hard to separate the topic out from questions about domestic support for the war and why the US political machinery has been apparently unable to stop it marching forwards. But point taken let's try to avoid fully digressing onto domestic US politics questions.

(Having said that I admit I've not moderated very much on this board for a while now but I am friendly!)

[Lady Bliss]

Abyss, on 07 April 2026 - 03:24 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 07 April 2026 - 02:54 PM, said:

Macros, on 07 April 2026 - 01:35 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 07 April 2026 - 12:26 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 06 April 2026 - 12:36 AM, said:

Meanwhile... Trump posted ominously on Truth Social:

Quote

Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!

https://truthsocial....353078945787501

Some people think this implies he may nuke Iran, but I don't see any reason to think that---aside from Trump being Trump... and spiraling into overt psychopathy and dementia.

At what point are your American oversight people going to stop this man...it's getting worse daily and the threats get more and more ominous...

I'm SO TIRED.

Oversight?

QT, we've discussed this. No one has done shit to stop him so dar, the brakes came off the second he was not pulled up for his first rule break

I know, but the hind survival brain in me keeps screaming that SOMEONE should do something...and I can't fathom no one is. It beggars belief that this many Americans are either fine with this behaviour or they don't have the stones to set their cities aflame in protest.

They either support him, or else don't have the guts (Democrats) or resources (everyone else) to do anything about him. And by 'him' i mean the government writ large, there's an entire structure behind trump that rises or falls on him staying in power and a whole other structure who simply rides the wave to profit, and both will do everything and anything to keep themselves there and could not care less who gets trampled or bombed along the way. Trump is just the loudest most organgey part of the problem.

We DO still protest and call our congressmen, but without people to stand toe to toe with our oligarchs we are as helpless as Russians.

[Lady Bliss]

Cause, on 07 April 2026 - 06:05 PM, said:

8 million people took the streets at the last no kings protest. That’s 2.4% of the population and obviously they represent an even larger group. The problem isn’t people not screaming that Trump is a disaster it’s that the average citizen or even 8 million average citizens together no longer can move the needle.

The mechanism that transforms the will of the people into action is experiencing massive axle loss.

The next significant moment is the midterm November election. Otherwise
People are screaming into the wind.


Edit: lol Amphibian, they say great minds think alike but they also say fools never differ. Let’s agree to the former.

On the November election they are already trying to prevent voters from being able to vote.

[Macros]

Is there visceral rage, that just not commuted via media?

They are coming for your ability to vote, this is a dictatorship being made in the most media orientated nation in the world.


anyway, what is this fucknut going to do at 8pm eastern?

[Lady Bliss]

Macros, on 07 April 2026 - 08:03 PM, said:

Above.

Strikes.

Boycotts, hit their wallets.

We are digressing, this is back into US pantomime thread territory.

A friendly mod can shift my diateibes over if they want.

Short version those no kings marches are more like Macys day parades now than a protest

Strikes become difficult in Right To Work states in areas without Unions to protect them. US businesses are happy to fire anyone that doesn’t come to work because there is always someone willing to take the job.

[Grief]

Rumour mill going off recently based on the slightest idea that the US and Iran are open to Pakistan's ceasefire proposal. If so, the TACO trade has become very reliable indeed. Markets are starting to get used to the Friday-Monday hype cycle at this point.

If it's just a chance to lick wounds and stock up for round two then I'd have to imagine that benefits the Americans more than the IRGC. But I could easily see it as a prelude to the US pulling out and Iran must be making that calculation as well. Both because Trump doesn't seem game for prolonged conflict and because it would mean re-committing back into an unpopular war.

If the US does pull out in the near term it will be very hard to sell as anything but a bloody nose. I'm not even sure what end conditions could meet that possibility.

[Macros]

How can the US pull out now without offering reparations and holding up senior staff to scrutiny?

They are the aggressors here

ETA - see above there is little actual sympathy here worldwide for the Israel/US aggression. These 2 nations started this war.

This post has been edited by Macros: Yesterday, 08:51 PM

[Garak]

Even if the US pulls out, Trump will declare it's a victory and his cultists will just swallow it up.

[Grief]

At this point, the US pulling out would be a significant win for the IRGC in most ways except - as you point out Macros - financially.

It would show they can ride out the military campaign, restrict access to the Strait, and cling to power domestically.

Nonetheless, the country has taken actual damage and will need to find money. Geopolitical wins are great but they don't fill your coffers by themselves.

Meanwhile for its part in this hypothetical scenario the US would not have achieved any real strategic objective, found the limit of its allies' most gruding support, and taken a domestic political hit.

Any kind of reparation - or even accepting Iranian rent-taking on the Strait - feel way too much like a visible sign of defeat. Trump can try to act like that it is someone else's problem but if Americans keep feeling high prices they will not agree.

If there is any kind of recompense my guess would be that it takes the shape of sanctions relief, brushed under the rug as an opportunity to make economically beneficial deals with a new-and-improved leadership. Iran is hugely sanctioned so there is a lot of space to offer compensation just by easing off the dial a little.

That's all very hypothetical right now obviously and would kick a huge can down the road. It's not very obvious what US path doesn't do that though.

As for leadership scrutiny, well, there's always Hegseth for the chopping block. It's hard to chop though because the President can't extract himself from responsibility for such a big decision. It's one place where you can't blame the other guy. They will clearly want to spin whatever happens as a win. JD Vance seems to made a decent stab profiling himself as the anti-war voice in the room, which I think is a smart play (without getting too far into domestic politics again).

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Grief, on 07 April 2026 - 08:24 PM, said:

Rumour mill going off recently based on the slightest idea that the US and Iran are open to Pakistan's ceasefire proposal. If so, the TACO trade has become very reliable indeed. Markets are starting to get used to the Friday-Monday hype cycle at this point.

If it's just a chance to lick wounds and stock up for round two then I'd have to imagine that benefits the Americans more than the IRGC. But I could easily see it as a prelude to the US pulling out and Iran must be making that calculation as well. Both because Trump doesn't seem game for prolonged conflict and because it would mean re-committing back into an unpopular war.

If the US does pull out in the near term it will be very hard to sell as anything but a bloody nose. I'm not even sure what end conditions could meet that possibility.

I was on the verge of posting that Iran almost certainly would not agree to a ceasefire, but held back... and now the New York Times is reporting that an unnamed Iranian official says they will, provided Trump and Netanyahu agree:

Quote

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan posted on social media that talks were "progressing steadily," and had "the potential to lead to substantive results in near future."

Mr. Sharif publicly asked Mr. Trump to extend his deadline by two weeks and for Iran in turn to open the strait "as a goodwill gesture."

An Iranian official familiar with the matter said Iran was willing to accept the proposal, but the U.S. and Israeli positions were unclear.

https://www.nytimes....?smid=url-share

Acquiescing to nuclear blackmail and genocidal threats would set a terrible precedent for the future of humanity.

Iran might be demanding to charge a two million dollar (probably in yuan) toll per ship; even if the Iranian official's claim is accurate, Trump may refuse.

The threat of nuclear genocide is most likely just Trump's hackneyed old sales tactic of "anchoring"---making an absurdly extreme proposal or mind-bogglingly terrible threat so that when he "softens" it to something only moderately terrible it doesn't seem as bad as it otherwise would have. Same as he did with his illegal "reciprocal tariffs" last April.

https://www.thenegot...on-Wake-Up-Call

Still, I found the threat of nuclear genocide extremely upsetting. Literally sickening. When I re-read "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will" I was gripping my phone like I was wringing Trump's neck (which I then vividly imagined).

Paul Krugman today called it "our darkest hour"---to which I'd add: "our darkest hour so far".

Our Darkest Hour - Paul Krugman

More ominously I think it's also a "trial balloon" to see how people---including people in Congress, intelligence agencies, and the military---react to threats of nuclear annihilation and genocide.

There has been some pushback, even among congressional Republicans and the far right:

Quote

Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin and a close ally of President Trump, warned that the president would lose his support if he struck Iran's civilian infrastructure[...] Mr. Johnson told The Wall Street Journal that Mr. Trump would forfeit his backing and it would be "a huge mistake," if he carried out his threat to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages."

[...] In a lengthy post on X, Representative Nate Moran, Republican of Texas, said he had supported the president's moves on Iran so far, but warned that the United States must conduct military operations "for just causes and through just and moral means."

"So let me be clear," he wrote. "I do not support the destruction of a 'whole civilization.' That is not who we are, and it is not consistent with the principles that have long guided America."

And on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, pushed back strongly on Mr. Trump's social media post.

"The President's threat that 'a whole civilization will die tonight' cannot be excused away as an attempt to gain leverage in negotiations with Iran," Ms. Murkowski, who is weighing a bid to force a vote in Congress to place parameters on the war

https://www.nytimes....?smid=url-share

Quote

"We cannot kill an entire civilization," Ms. [Marjorie Taylor] Greene wrote on social media. "This is evil and madness."

[...] Tucker Carlson [...] called on U.S. officials to disobey the president's orders if he calls to attack civilians.

"Now it's time to say no, absolutely not, and say it directly to the president, no," Mr. Carlson said, echoing Democratic members of Congress whose similar remarks calling on members of the military to disobey illegal orders prompted Mr. Trump to demand investigations.

[...] Also joining the criticism of the president has been a chorus of far-right commentators and conspiracy theorists, including Alex Jones and Candace Owens, who echoed the call for Mr. Trump's removal from office under the 25th Amendment.

"He is a genocidal lunatic," Ms. Owens wrote on social media. "Our Congress and military need to intervene. We are beyond madness."

Trump's Threat to Wipe Out a 'Whole Civilization' Appalls Some Conservatives - The New York Times

The last No Kings Rally was a prelude to the general strike and boycott being called for on Friday May 1st:

Quote

May Day appears poised to be the next major national action. Organizers argue — and rightly so — that, in addition to marching, other tactics are necessary, including demonstrative, nonviolent shows of force. Indeed, all the tools in the toolbox must be employed in the fight against the MAGA right. Whether calls for strikes and boycotts this May Day will be widely heeded remains uncertain.

What's next after No Kings? May Day! – Communist Party USA

May Day Strong: No Work, No School, No Shopping | Indivisible

And people are protesting outside the White House:

Quote

The National Iranian American Council[...] said that it was holding an emergency rally, along with about 20 other organizations, at the White House on Tuesday evening to protest President Trump's rhetoric about the war.

https://www.nytimes....?smid=url-share

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 10:24 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Now Trump has accepted the ceasefire:

Quote

Trump said he agreed to the proposal by Pakistan, which calls for a two-week cease-fire and the immediate opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Over the next two weeks, Trump said that the United States will work on finalizing an agreement with Iran.

https://www.nytimes....?smid=url-share

So let's see whether the unnamed Iranian official's claim was accurate, and the Iranian government accepts...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 10:30 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Iran has now also accepted the ceasefire agreement:

Quote

Iran accepted Pakistan’s two-week cease-fire proposal following frantic diplomatic efforts by Pakistan and last-minute intervention by China, a key ally

https://www.nytimes....?smid=url-share

[Grief]

If there is a ceasefire, I'm predicting now that it ends with the US backing out of the war.

I just can't see the administration having the appetite to re-start it in a couple of weeks. The shock-and-awe-regime-change jig feels like a one time play. I don't think they have the appetite - or the support base - to pull of a transition into a long term operation.

I would add that it goes against all the messaging from the administration to date but it's not like that holds much stock; suffice to say that any Republican up for election this November should be screaming for the exit ramp.

The conditions that could actually make an off ramp feasible are very hard to predict. Both sides will want to come out with more than the pre-war status quo, and that can always kill a negotiation.

I guess my best bet is much the same as earlier. The US pretends the regime has changed for the better in some way - who is checking anyway? - and uses that as the premise for some kind of sanctions relief. In return the strait stays open and the US probably gets something symbolic in addition to counter domestic criticism that it was already open before they did anything. Maybe they could predicate it on some vague nuclear weapons concessions et voila we're back to the Obama nuclear deal but with less bite and more importantly Trump's name on it. All that's missing are some kickbacks.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

Iran's National Security Council said in a statement that Iran had been victorious and congratulated the people of Iran for their defiance in the five-week war with the United States and Israel and said the United States had accepted all of Iran's 10-point peace plan, including guarantees to not attack Iran, Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz and repatriation for financial losses.

https://www.nytimes....?smid=url-share

Still not clear whether Iran will be requiring a per-ship toll for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz during the ceasefire.


[Edit: I think that "repatriation" is supposed to be "reparations"---though the New York Times has yet to correct it.]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 11:08 PM

[the broken]

Huh. The 'insane threats' policy somehow paid off.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

the broken, on 07 April 2026 - 11:31 PM, said:

Huh. The 'insane threats' policy somehow paid off.

If that's what ultimately proved dispositive... Iran probably won't be the last country he threatens like that.

Probably after the midterms though.

He may threaten to nuke parts of Europe, Latin America, or Canada.

I wouldn't rule out Denmark...

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: Yesterday, 11:51 PM

[Grief]

the broken, on 07 April 2026 - 11:31 PM, said:

Huh. The 'insane threats' policy somehow paid off.

Hard to say if that helped or not. I slightly suspect the link flows the other way around.

The US and Iran have been in backchannel discussions. The US administration seems like it has been looking to wind down and get out. The US administration internally knows it's own appetite to continue the war. And it knows what concessions it might be willing to explore to stop. Following through on the threats or not is also completely within their own control meaning whether or not you look insane to the outside world, you get the benefit of actually knowing your limits.

If you know that you are looking for the exits, making insane threats before you do it can be useful firstly as a negotiating strategy and secondly for your domestic audience. It lets you spin your story as US begins negotiating for an exit after insane threats instead of just US begins negotiating for an exit.

The end result is not different but it does look better at home. So if you are planning to open up negotiations anyway... why not put your bold statements out there first?

Obviously it's impossible to know these things so this is just personal speculation. The news are certainly playing up last-minute diplomacy and Trump is certainly erratic enough.

There have been plenty of bold statements by Iran's leadership for domestic consumption as well, and I'm hesitant to put stock in Trump's bold statements being a lot more than that. After all no one is pretending it is Iran's crazy threats that brought the US to the negotiating table rather than their actual leverage, so why is that different for the US?

At the end of the day, the real conditions of any deal will be what matters. There are going to be millions of statements trying to spin it both ways.

Meanwhile reports still coming in of explosions across the region.

[Mentalist]

Sounds like a big win for China.

And Iran and Oman just low-key turning one of the world's most critical international shipping corridors into a toll zone is just *cheff's kiss". Another brilliant accomplishment by the toddler-in-chief.