2 week ceasefire

[Nanga Parbat]

He thought things wrongly. A quick regime change as he planned to plot an uprising from within the Iranians was simply cut short and never happened. He doesn't know they're loyal and not sellouts like the people in Venezuela who saw that their president was kidnapped. They forget their  first mission as citizens which is to protect thier president and national interest at all cost. The case of breaking the ceasefire do not suprise me, they're fond of that and are without honour. I don't know what actions they take about this revenge though, but they will defend themselves until they get long lasting peace.

Yes you are right,  Iranian will defend themselves untill they get long lasting peace. Every time Trump offered them for table talk or every time they responded very well. But don't know after making agreement, within two or three weeks Trump used to do something that went against the plan. That's really hit the Iranian trust.  Or again and again lame excuses for the attacks are now not acceptable. Iran will not stop now as a nation they proved themselves as a strong enough or they all are united with their government. So it's time for Trump to understand that why in arrogance he has put his army in this difficult situation. US nation itself against the Trump's decisions. Now it is difficult that Iran will agree again on ceasefire untill he would not make everything clear. Now they are ready or the situation of do and die. But globally it's created tensions, so within few weeks majority of the countries may be increased the pressure on the Trump for the peace due to economic crisis.

[DrBeer]

Trump could do many senseless things, but this is not one of them, and his war situation room and advisers would not let him because, it is too risky. The best they could do is what they are doing; sending ground troops would only skyrocket the casualties to hundreds, if not thousands in a day. To what gain?

Wasting money on military infrastructures and weapons without losing many lives is a big deal.

With or without ground troops, the damage is already done. I mean, both the US and Iran are suffering economically. A lot of money is being spent on military alone, while the US national debt continues to rise. campaign.

This is no damage compared to what ground troops would suffer. If it's about money, it can be replaced. Besides, the US is a very rich country, so all these spendings are not the issue, but the preservation of lives at as possible as they could. The last time I checked, despite the war lingering for months, the total US personnels who had died are only 18. Imagine if hundreds are losing their lives daily due to ground troops deployment? That is astronomical, and no amount of money can replace that.

The catch is that, for Iran, this would mean real destruction and economic decline, which would take many years to recover from. For the U.S., however, aside from the loss of military personnel, the remaining costs consist of printed money that enters the U.S. economy through defense contractors and related industries. In other words, the U.S. faces no destruction or problems; it simply needs to print money, invest it in the economy, and then, once its goals are achieved, "write off" the excess funds.

[Smack That Ace]

Trump could do many senseless things, but this is not one of them, and his war situation room and advisers would not let him because, it is too risky. The best they could do is what they are doing; sending ground troops would only skyrocket the casualties to hundreds, if not thousands in a day. To what gain?

Wasting money on military infrastructures and weapons without losing many lives is a big deal.

With or without ground troops, the damage is already done. I mean, both the US and Iran are suffering economically. A lot of money is being spent on military alone, while the US national debt continues to rise. campaign.

This is no damage compared to what ground troops would suffer. If it's about money, it can be replaced. Besides, the US is a very rich country, so all these spendings are not the issue, but the preservation of lives at as possible as they could. The last time I checked, despite the war lingering for months, the total US personnels who had died are only 18. Imagine if hundreds are losing their lives daily due to ground troops deployment? That is astronomical, and no amount of money can replace that.

The catch is that, for Iran, this would mean real destruction and economic decline, which would take many years to recover from. For the U.S., however, aside from the loss of military personnel, the remaining costs consist of printed money that enters the U.S. economy through defense contractors and related industries. In other words, the U.S. faces no destruction or problems; it simply needs to print money, invest it in the economy, and then, once its goals are achieved, "write off" the excess funds.

The US is the world's leading military superpower. They possess the most advanced and expensive weapons, the purpose being to minimize casualties. So any loss of personnel is a major loss and could also damage its reputation.

The US spend $1T a year on its military and has almost every advantage, while Iran is under sanctions and spend only around $15b on its military each year. Basically, this is already a very unequal war. Iran's goal is to inflict losses on the US, prevent it from achieving its objectives, and push back the aggressor. This was considered a major victory for a country that was assessed as significantly weaker.

It's similar to how the US was once called the loser of the Vietnam war. It was a war that lasted more than a decade, and they lost over 60k troops but still could not defeat the Vietnamese. In the end, they admitted defeat and withdrew their forces. Meanwhile, it was a historic victory for Vietnam.

[EarnOnVictor]

This is no damage compared to what ground troops would suffer. If it's about money, it can be replaced. Besides, the US is a very rich country, so all these spendings are not the issue, but the preservation of lives at as possible as they could. The last time I checked, despite the war lingering for months, the total US personnels who had died are only 18. Imagine if hundreds are losing their lives daily due to ground troops deployment? That is astronomical, and no amount of money can replace that.

The catch is that, for Iran, this would mean real destruction and economic decline, which would take many years to recover from. For the U.S., however, aside from the loss of military personnel, the remaining costs consist of printed money that enters the U.S. economy through defense contractors and related industries. In other words, the U.S. faces no destruction or problems; it simply needs to print money, invest it in the economy, and then, once its goals are achieved, "write off" the excess funds.

The US is the world's leading military superpower. They possess the most advanced and expensive weapons, the purpose being to minimize casualties. So any loss of personnel is a major loss and could also damage its reputation.

Reading what you guys are now saying, I think we are now aligned on this, unlike those who would uniformedly say that the US is feeling the heat and couldn't dare to send soldier, thereby they are powerless, no. No matter how brave and powerful you are, you shouldn't dare some obvious danger. That's will not only cause aass destruction, but also speak of how stupid you arenif dared.

The modern-day military has evolved beyond how many soldiers you have and can be readily deployed to the battle ground, but how many bombs you have and how long can you sustain the bombing. This is more powerful and sensible than sending human soldiers to the battle ground, more reason why countries are now building military robots and hardwares to do that job to minimise actuality, except for special operations, which will not need too many special soldiers.

As for the economy, the US is so rich and advanced to sustain a war more than any country in the world today, so they feel this war less economically. Still, I dislike the way the Congress and media is washing their "dirty linen outside," as people have started painting them as weak.

[AmaGold70]

The war between US, and Iran has lasted for a while now, and I think their is need to make reconciliation or an understanding that will bring lasting peace. This war is not majorly affecting US, and Iran alone, but the effect of the war is has extended to other parts of the world. The shortage in the supply of oil, and petroleum products to other parts of the world is causing economic mayhem because one thing that usually help to keep economy stable is cost of transportation, when transportation is high, it will automatically affect the prices of goods, and services, and this is exactly what is happening right now as there is no free fuel passage through strait of Hormuz.

[Oluwa-btc]

The war between US, and Iran has lasted for a while now, and I think their is need to make reconciliation or an understanding that will bring lasting peace. This war is not majorly affecting US, and Iran alone, but the effect of the war is has extended to other parts of the world. The shortage in the supply of oil, and petroleum products to other parts of the world is causing economic mayhem because one thing that usually help to keep economy stable is cost of transportation, when transportation is high, it will automatically affect the prices of goods, and services, and this is exactly what is happening right now as there is no free fuel passage through strait of Hormuz.

It was 5 months officially on the 29th of July.  The memorandum was signed but who broke it over and over again?! The global economy are truly feeling the impacts of the war.
Oil and energy has got a lot to in all areas of our lives. It doesn't boils down to transportation alone.
Over 4 million barrels per day no longer goes through the Strait of Hormuz again. Not just that but also, Russian refineries are being hit by Ukraine. The same we can say for Yemen closing down the red sea they control.

The expected oil and energy meant to circulate the world stalled for over five months, I don't even know how people are going to cope if it gets worse than this. We're sending ourselves a lot backwards with such situations.

[STT]

The people suffer more then anyone at the top, a completely pointless objective to start the war with killing an 86 year old.  It was well known Iran were a nation expecting and built for war, clearly one old guy being killed was an awful strategy to proceed with and the rest of the war has the same quality, many bombs nothing achieved.

[Abiky]

The US is the world's leading military superpower. They possess the most advanced and expensive weapons, the purpose being to minimize casualties. So any loss of personnel is a major loss and could also damage its reputation.

The US spend $1T a year on its military and has almost every advantage, while Iran is under sanctions and spend only around $15b on its military each year. Basically, this is already a very unequal war. Iran's goal is to inflict losses on the US, prevent it from achieving its objectives, and push back the aggressor. This was considered a major victory for a country that was assessed as significantly weaker.

It's similar to how the US was once called the loser of the Vietnam war. It was a war that lasted more than a decade, and they lost over 60k troops but still could not defeat the Vietnamese. In the end, they admitted defeat and withdrew their forces. Meanwhile, it was a historic victory for Vietnam.

History repeats itself. It's going to end just like Vietman. The US facing an embarrasing defeat against Iran. It's just that Trump doesn't want to admit it. Otherwise, the country will be perceived as weak.

Iran's strongest leverage was the Strait of Hormuz. And it ultimately won. Even if the US military was far superior than Iran's. This is all a matter of strategy. Not strength. Many Americans are anxious for the war to come to an end. The longer it takes, the worst it'll be for the economy. We'll see what happens.