Welcome to Home & Away. The war with Iran is at a critical juncture: after some five weeks, a ceasefire has been agreed to by the United States and Iran but has not been implemented. It is not even clear what it entails. Peace talks are slated to begin in a day. As a result, the protagonists and all those affected by the conflict (which is just about everyone) find themselves somewhere between war and peace, a gray area that is likely to describe the situation for some time to come.
What happened over five weeks isn’t just a tactical ledger, it’s a legitimacy event. The U.S. entered as the uncontested arbiter of Middle East security architecture. It exits as one actor among several, with China waiting patiently in the anteroom and Gulf states quietly updating their hedging calculus.
The Iran-as-strategic-winner argument is the most important and least comfortable conclusion here. Regimes that survive superpower military campaigns don’t just survive, they’re immunized. The domestic narrative writes itself: we absorbed the full weight of American airpower and we’re still here. That’s not a talking point. That’s a founding myth for the next generation of Iranian nationalism.
The Hormuz proposal is elegant but assumes Iran responds to institutional incentives. A regime that just demonstrated its indispensability through asymmetric resistance has little reason to trade leverage for revenue-sharing arrangements it doesn’t control. You don’t voluntarily enter a multilateral framework immediately after proving you don’t need one.
The deepest loss isn’t military or diplomatic. It’s the erosion of the assumption that American power is purposeful. Erratic objectives, unsecured alliances, and a five-week war that produced none of its stated goals—-that’s not a setback.
That’s a data point other capitals will cite for decades.
Iran: You don’t voluntarily enter a multilateral framework immediately after proving you don’t need one.
USA: The deepest loss isn’t military or diplomatic. It’s the erosion of the assumption that American power is purposeful.
I’m reminded again and again these days of historian Joanne Freeman, who talks about the role of contingency. She says that we are in “a time of extreme contingency.”
I clicked on and read the Peggy Noonan article you praised. While I think she is usually worth reading, and this time she may have read the mood on the right correctly, I think she made a monumental error in judgement when she wrote the following about Trump:
"He has enormous personal tolerance for dramatic, high-stakes situations in which outcomes are unknown and won’t immediately be known. The waiting doesn’t wear him down."
In my view that couldn't be further from the truth. Putting aside medical terminology, Trump is a 6th grade bully who loves to break things but he has zero tolerance for pain and personal loss. So, when his Iran play turned south he panicked, which is exactly what his profane rant clearly demonstrates. I'm stunned that Ms. Noonan didn't recognize this. The thought that went through my mind was that she was trying to butter up readers on the right (this is the WSJ editorial page) before making her point.
I always enjoying reading your post and feel it’s a much needed voice of truth and reason - especially in these dark times. One thing I have started to feel is that the reduction of Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon is no longer an issue. They have discovered something much stronger - the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
The status quo is not sustainable. Or let me put it another way US won’t let this status quo remain. Only scenario that works for US is if Middle East self destructs. So that a viable natural resource order is take offline.
Actually if you empower SA n UAE with let’s say a canal though this area, right along the purple line then the equation changes n destruction is not needed for stable Middle East
The war has devastated Asian economies and food supplies in Asia. Due to high energy and fertilizer cost this crisis has the potential to turn into severe food crisis! People are planting less which is expected much higher food prices next season. Due to free markets higher food and energy prices in Asia mean higher cost of living all around the WORLD including in the USA.
THERE IS NO BENEFIT IN THUS WAR OTHER THAN A PRACE DEAL! Viktor, the Magnificent, title: Magnus NUCLEUS for Purity of THOUGHT
I spent my career working for a labor union, the goal of negotiations: a win-win, each side walking away being able to defend their position to their constituents as well as a sticky settlement, both sides working under the conditions of the new agreement.
I don’t foresee a comprehensive agreement, maybe on a few points, and, sadly, I see a resumption of our assault on Iran, the Hegseth policy: keep up the bombardment … who will prevail “…in the room where it happens.”
probably no one …the only datapoint that might force a settlement: three or four thousand points south on the Dow averages…
I think we're finally seeing the limits of Netanyahu's (and his supporters like WSJ Op Ed) limits of the non-stop carnage strategy. He could have stopped and taken meaningful gains (e.g., hostage return) and instead caved into the far right and his compulsion for political survival.
I hope Trump has the sense to put a limit to the nonsense and actually pursue America-first policies. The bomb and massacre strategy doesn't serve US or Israel's long-term interests. Though admittedly, I'm less concerned with the latter and more the former.
Going back to the ceasefire, it boggles my mind that there is no apparent agreement on whether Lebanon was to be included. This was a material part of any agreement and in any agreement if the parties can’t agree on a material aspect of an agreement, there is no agreement. This is black letter law. It calls into question as to who was doing the negotiating for the US. If it was Witkoff and Kushner I’m not surprised.
The Iran War was not a foreign policy decision. It was a procurement event.
Eight days into the presidency an executive order created the Golden Dome. Before the war. Before the radars burned. Before anyone publicly discussed attacking Iran.
The program was already designed. The contracts were already awarded in secret. The companies receiving those contracts were already invested in by the President’s son and the Vice President.
There are two people in the entire executive branch exempt from federal conflict of interest law.
The President. And the Vice President.
Congress calls it Teapot Dome on steroids. The law calls it perfectly legal.
The ‘Open for All or Closed to All’ policy could rally the world as it reflects a commitment to keeping an international waterway open to nearly everyone’s benefit.
Question for @Richard Haass, does this also apply to the Baltic, the Gulf of Finland and the Danish straits? What if Iran imposes pollution control penalties and requires insurance from a local provider for ships transiting the strait of Hormuz just as Mexico does or used to do for car insurance for Californians driving into Baja?
This assessment assumes, perhaps correctly, perhaps not, that the U.S. won’t resume the war, this time with more support and possibly the military participation of the Gulf States.
In the peace negotiations in Pakistan, the negotiators should focus their attention and creative energies on signing, ratifying, and enforcing a peace treaty that increases health, safety and economic prosperity for the populations of Iran and the USA.
Before POTUS47 ordered US war planes to bomb military and civilian targets in Iran there was PEACE NOT WAR between the populations of the USA and Iran.
Indicators of PEACE NOT WAR between the populations of the USA & Iran include the following: 1) fewer deaths and injuries among political leaders, soldiers, and civilians in both countries; and 2) less destruction of property, civilian infrastructure, and the means of economic production in both countries.
T
o return to PEACE NOT WAR between the USA and Iran described above, the two governments must sign, ratify, and administer the terms of peace treaties with the following objectives:
1) Permanent end to the bombing of military and civilian targets in the USA and Iran by military, paramilitary, cyberwarfare, and covert intelligence forces.
2) Permanent end to a) extrajudicial killing of political and military leaders, soldiers, and civilians in the USA and Iran; and b) destruction of military and civilian property, physical infrastructure, and the means of economic production in Iran and the USA. both countries.
3) Safe passage of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman—unimpeded by military or financial obstacles imposed by Iran, the USA, or other Countries.
4) Creation and administration of a “ Joint War Reparations Fund (JWRF)” to reimburse the governments of the USA and Iran for expenses incurred to repair the physical and economic damages caused by the military and economic actions of both the USA & Iran; the USA and Iran will each contribute 50% of the resources to the JWRF.
5) Agreement between the USA and Iran to a) stop the bombing and other military operations that cause death and destruction in other Countries in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman; b) use their political, diplomatic, and economic powers to persuade the governments of Israel and Lebanon to end the Israel-Lebanon War; and c) end military paramilitary, operations in Israel, the USA, and Iran.
6) Agreement between the USA and Iran to defer negotiations to other bilateral & multinational forums on Nuclear Demilitarization Treaties between a) Iran and the USA; b) Iran and Israel; and c) Iran & other nearby Countries to other bilateral or multilateral negotiating forums.
Thanks for your thoughtful post and the links as well: I wish someone from the White House and/or gop elected representatives were reading it -- if only to discuss merits/concerns. I don't experience them as being open to any ideas or exchange: where the hell have they gone..
What happened over five weeks isn’t just a tactical ledger, it’s a legitimacy event. The U.S. entered as the uncontested arbiter of Middle East security architecture. It exits as one actor among several, with China waiting patiently in the anteroom and Gulf states quietly updating their hedging calculus.
The Iran-as-strategic-winner argument is the most important and least comfortable conclusion here. Regimes that survive superpower military campaigns don’t just survive, they’re immunized. The domestic narrative writes itself: we absorbed the full weight of American airpower and we’re still here. That’s not a talking point. That’s a founding myth for the next generation of Iranian nationalism.
The Hormuz proposal is elegant but assumes Iran responds to institutional incentives. A regime that just demonstrated its indispensability through asymmetric resistance has little reason to trade leverage for revenue-sharing arrangements it doesn’t control. You don’t voluntarily enter a multilateral framework immediately after proving you don’t need one.
The deepest loss isn’t military or diplomatic. It’s the erosion of the assumption that American power is purposeful. Erratic objectives, unsecured alliances, and a five-week war that produced none of its stated goals—-that’s not a setback.
That’s a data point other capitals will cite for decades.
—Johan
Former FSO
🐌
Iran: You don’t voluntarily enter a multilateral framework immediately after proving you don’t need one.
USA: The deepest loss isn’t military or diplomatic. It’s the erosion of the assumption that American power is purposeful.
I’m reminded again and again these days of historian Joanne Freeman, who talks about the role of contingency. She says that we are in “a time of extreme contingency.”
I clicked on and read the Peggy Noonan article you praised. While I think she is usually worth reading, and this time she may have read the mood on the right correctly, I think she made a monumental error in judgement when she wrote the following about Trump:
"He has enormous personal tolerance for dramatic, high-stakes situations in which outcomes are unknown and won’t immediately be known. The waiting doesn’t wear him down."
In my view that couldn't be further from the truth. Putting aside medical terminology, Trump is a 6th grade bully who loves to break things but he has zero tolerance for pain and personal loss. So, when his Iran play turned south he panicked, which is exactly what his profane rant clearly demonstrates. I'm stunned that Ms. Noonan didn't recognize this. The thought that went through my mind was that she was trying to butter up readers on the right (this is the WSJ editorial page) before making her point.
I always enjoying reading your post and feel it’s a much needed voice of truth and reason - especially in these dark times. One thing I have started to feel is that the reduction of Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon is no longer an issue. They have discovered something much stronger - the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.
Maybe not "stronger", but certainly more usable.
The status quo is not sustainable. Or let me put it another way US won’t let this status quo remain. Only scenario that works for US is if Middle East self destructs. So that a viable natural resource order is take offline.
Actually if you empower SA n UAE with let’s say a canal though this area, right along the purple line then the equation changes n destruction is not needed for stable Middle East
The war has devastated Asian economies and food supplies in Asia. Due to high energy and fertilizer cost this crisis has the potential to turn into severe food crisis! People are planting less which is expected much higher food prices next season. Due to free markets higher food and energy prices in Asia mean higher cost of living all around the WORLD including in the USA.
THERE IS NO BENEFIT IN THUS WAR OTHER THAN A PRACE DEAL! Viktor, the Magnificent, title: Magnus NUCLEUS for Purity of THOUGHT
I spent my career working for a labor union, the goal of negotiations: a win-win, each side walking away being able to defend their position to their constituents as well as a sticky settlement, both sides working under the conditions of the new agreement.
I don’t foresee a comprehensive agreement, maybe on a few points, and, sadly, I see a resumption of our assault on Iran, the Hegseth policy: keep up the bombardment … who will prevail “…in the room where it happens.”
probably no one …the only datapoint that might force a settlement: three or four thousand points south on the Dow averages…
I think we're finally seeing the limits of Netanyahu's (and his supporters like WSJ Op Ed) limits of the non-stop carnage strategy. He could have stopped and taken meaningful gains (e.g., hostage return) and instead caved into the far right and his compulsion for political survival.
I hope Trump has the sense to put a limit to the nonsense and actually pursue America-first policies. The bomb and massacre strategy doesn't serve US or Israel's long-term interests. Though admittedly, I'm less concerned with the latter and more the former.
“I hope Trump has the sense….” Don’t hold your breath
Going back to the ceasefire, it boggles my mind that there is no apparent agreement on whether Lebanon was to be included. This was a material part of any agreement and in any agreement if the parties can’t agree on a material aspect of an agreement, there is no agreement. This is black letter law. It calls into question as to who was doing the negotiating for the US. If it was Witkoff and Kushner I’m not surprised.
The Iran War was not a foreign policy decision. It was a procurement event.
Eight days into the presidency an executive order created the Golden Dome. Before the war. Before the radars burned. Before anyone publicly discussed attacking Iran.
The program was already designed. The contracts were already awarded in secret. The companies receiving those contracts were already invested in by the President’s son and the Vice President.
There are two people in the entire executive branch exempt from federal conflict of interest law.
The President. And the Vice President.
Congress calls it Teapot Dome on steroids. The law calls it perfectly legal.
The full investigation is live now at Waves and Positions. https://wavesandpositions.substack.com/p/the-golden-dome
John Mearsheimer's Misreading of Trump, China, and Iran's Martyrs' War
https://substack.com/@theveseyrepublic
Apr 18, 2026
Hezbollah is the wild card that Lebanon cannot control
April 16
Arlen
Do you think a Chinese ship that just went through the Straight of Hormuz has weapons to be delivered to Iran?
The ‘Open for All or Closed to All’ policy could rally the world as it reflects a commitment to keeping an international waterway open to nearly everyone’s benefit.
Question for @Richard Haass, does this also apply to the Baltic, the Gulf of Finland and the Danish straits? What if Iran imposes pollution control penalties and requires insurance from a local provider for ships transiting the strait of Hormuz just as Mexico does or used to do for car insurance for Californians driving into Baja?
This assessment assumes, perhaps correctly, perhaps not, that the U.S. won’t resume the war, this time with more support and possibly the military participation of the Gulf States.
In the peace negotiations in Pakistan, the negotiators should focus their attention and creative energies on signing, ratifying, and enforcing a peace treaty that increases health, safety and economic prosperity for the populations of Iran and the USA.
Before POTUS47 ordered US war planes to bomb military and civilian targets in Iran there was PEACE NOT WAR between the populations of the USA and Iran.
Indicators of PEACE NOT WAR between the populations of the USA & Iran include the following: 1) fewer deaths and injuries among political leaders, soldiers, and civilians in both countries; and 2) less destruction of property, civilian infrastructure, and the means of economic production in both countries.
T
o return to PEACE NOT WAR between the USA and Iran described above, the two governments must sign, ratify, and administer the terms of peace treaties with the following objectives:
1) Permanent end to the bombing of military and civilian targets in the USA and Iran by military, paramilitary, cyberwarfare, and covert intelligence forces.
2) Permanent end to a) extrajudicial killing of political and military leaders, soldiers, and civilians in the USA and Iran; and b) destruction of military and civilian property, physical infrastructure, and the means of economic production in Iran and the USA. both countries.
3) Safe passage of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman—unimpeded by military or financial obstacles imposed by Iran, the USA, or other Countries.
4) Creation and administration of a “ Joint War Reparations Fund (JWRF)” to reimburse the governments of the USA and Iran for expenses incurred to repair the physical and economic damages caused by the military and economic actions of both the USA & Iran; the USA and Iran will each contribute 50% of the resources to the JWRF.
5) Agreement between the USA and Iran to a) stop the bombing and other military operations that cause death and destruction in other Countries in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman; b) use their political, diplomatic, and economic powers to persuade the governments of Israel and Lebanon to end the Israel-Lebanon War; and c) end military paramilitary, operations in Israel, the USA, and Iran.
6) Agreement between the USA and Iran to defer negotiations to other bilateral & multinational forums on Nuclear Demilitarization Treaties between a) Iran and the USA; b) Iran and Israel; and c) Iran & other nearby Countries to other bilateral or multilateral negotiating forums.
https://ianmcniff.substack.com/p/god-wills-it-on-the-crusade-nobody?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2lo6de
Thanks for your thoughtful post and the links as well: I wish someone from the White House and/or gop elected representatives were reading it -- if only to discuss merits/concerns. I don't experience them as being open to any ideas or exchange: where the hell have they gone..