
OneOpenSea
2.8K posts

OneOpenSea
@OneOpenSea
If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it. -Richard Feynman


For the millionth time: the U.S. still doesn’t understand how the Iranian regime works. That’s why negotiations have failed, why military pressure hasn’t delivered results, and why escalation won’t lead to a breakthrough. Here’s the bottom line: Iran will not surrender, even under heavy bombardment or severe damage to its infrastructure. The regime sees this as a fight for survival. External pressure only strengthens its narrative that the U.S. and its allies are waging war against the Iranian people, not just the regime. They won’t concede to demands they’ve already rejected in the past. And every time Washington raises the stakes, Tehran, and its regional partners will respond in kind. If Trump (or any U.S. administration) wants a deal, it must recognize a hard truth: Iran does not see itself as negotiating from weakness. There is no realistic scenario in which maximum pressure alone forces capitulation even if the U.S. targets strategic assets. Yes, the U.S. can inflict significant damage. But there is no “textbook solution” here, and certainly no path to regime surrender through pressure alone. The only scenario that fundamentally changes the equation is regime change, and short of that, escalation will not produce a different outcome. #iran



Interesting that Putin and Xi have been relatively quiet about the Iran war. A few diplomatic statements calling for ceasefire, but nothing close to escalation. A classic strategic principle often attributed to Napoleon: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” If the U.S. gets dragged deeper into another Middle East conflict: → Global attention shifts away from Ukraine → Oil prices rise, boosting Russian revenues → U.S. military bandwidth gets stretched → Washington focuses less on the Indo-Pacific Meanwhile China and Russia don’t need to fire a single shot. Of course, neither wants Iran to completely collapse, that would remove a useful geopolitical partner and risk chaos in global energy markets. It’s not hard to imagine Russia and China quietly helping Iran with intelligence and drone-related support, enough to keep the war going, but not enough to trigger direct confrontation.








Boots on the ground would be bad but I'd understand it. Unilateral TACO is understandable but an admission of failure (even if Trump claims victory) "We'll keep doing this the same for now but leave in 2-3 weeks" is... just a weird way to telegraph your intentions? What's solved in 2-3 more weeks on this?






UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the UK will host a meeting of about 35 countries this week to discuss reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

TRUMP IS SET TO CONFIRM IN HIS WEDNESDAY SPEECH THE 2-3 WEEK PLAN TO END OPERATIONS IN IRAN, ACCORDING TO A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL.

JUST IN: OpenAI raises $122,000,000,000 at $852 billion valuation.












