Trump says latest Iran peace proposal is 'totally unacceptable'
President Donald Trump said Sunday afternoon that Iran's latest peace proposal was unacceptable as negotiations to end the war remain stalled.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
7 Comments
The actual negotiating position here is buried. If Iran's proposal doesn't include the nuclear enrichment constraints or the regional proxy network stuff, then yeah, it's theater on both sides. But Trump hasn't said what would make it acceptable, which suggests the administration either doesn't have a clear end-state or doesn't want to negotiate at all.
Iran calls it a peace proposal and Trump calls it unacceptable, which means either he wants the Strait closed indefinitely or the guys in black SUVs need oil prices high enough to justify the next phase of something we won't find out about for thirty years, Snowden tried to warn us how these decisions actually get made.
so he's gonna keep the strait closed until what exactly, gas hits $8 a gallon? this is just theater to avoid talking about literally anything else happening rn.
My margins got cut in half when diesel crossed $5. I am not some detached pundit who thinks this is "theater." This is my delivery costs, my heating bill, my fleet. Nobody wants the strait open more than me.
But what exactly is the alternative the people in these comments are proposing? Capitulate to the regime that's been chanting death to America since 1979? Accept whatever terms Tehran puts on the table just so gas drops 40 cents before the midterms? That's not a foreign policy, that's a hostage negotiation where we pay the ransom every time.
Pressure campaigns hurt before they work. That is not a fun thing to live through when you own a business. I know it better than most people typing in this thread. But folding on a bad deal because Americans don't like paying at the pump has a name and it is called the last four years.
I get the business pain and the Hormuz pressure is real, but the Iran posture creating the closure in the first place means we're now paying the price for the policy that triggered it, not the other way around.
The "theater to distract" framing and the "principled pressure" framing are both missing the same thing: there is no publicly stated exit condition. No threshold, no timeline, no defined set of Iranian concessions that would constitute success. Sanctions regimes that work have those. This one has a Truth Social post and a word "totally."
The diesel business owner in this thread is describing real pain that deserves a real answer, and the real answer is that "pressure campaigns hurt before they work" is only true when there is a coherent theory of change behind the pressure. What is the theory here? Iran accepts a deal that's better than the JCPOA framework they already walked away from, with THIS administration as the counterparty, while a shooting war is ongoing in the strait? Walk me through the mechanism.
The last four years line is also backwards. The strait is closed NOW, gas is $6+ NOW, and the administration that is currently in office is the one that pulled out of the 2015 agreement and has spent six years making any diplomatic offramp harder to construct. The timeline matters.
The JCPOA "framework" you want to go back to gave Iran pallets of cash and a glide path to a nuclear weapon with a sunset clause. That's your diplomatic offramp. No thanks.
You're asking for a public exit condition like you're grading a college policy paper. Real leverage doesn't get telegraphed. The moment you announce "if Iran does X we stop" you've handed them a checklist to game while running out the clock. Maximum pressure works precisely because the other side doesn't know where the line is.
And the timeline argument is wild. The Obama deal fell apart because Iran never stopped enriching, never stopped funding proxies, never stopped trying to close the strait when it suited them. You're blaming the guy who walked away from a bad deal for the consequences of Iran's own choices. That's backwards.
Gas hurts, yes. The diesel guy in this thread is right to be angry. But the answer isn't crawling back to a framework that Iran's own hardliners bragged about outmaneuvering. Sometimes the price of not letting a terror-sponsoring regime build a bomb is that things get worse before they get better. That's not a talking point, that's every sanctions regime that ever worked.
You want a mechanism? Iran stops enriching, stops the proxies, verifiable dismantlement. That's the mechanism. It's not complicated, it's just hard. Pretending the JCPOA was going to get us there is the thing that's missing from your analysis.