US-Israel/Iran | CF Unstable & Unresolved | April-18th/May-20th | Analysis

[Lostpuppy]

Here’s something hitting headlines,

Congress approval under the act.

Here is a quick AI Overview:

As of late April 2026, with the 60-day deadline for the Iran conflict approaching, it is legally debated whether a ceasefire pauses the clock under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. While some Republican lawmakers argue that a ceasefire should pause the 60-day count to allow for diplomacy, the statute itself does not explicitly pause the clock for a ceasefire.

Key Considerations on the 60-Day Clock:Clock Continues via Blockade: Even with a ceasefire in place, if the U.S. continues active military operations—such as naval blockades in the Strait of Hormuz—the 60-day clock continues to run.

Debate Over Ceasefire Pauses: While lawmakers like GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick have stated "you can't punish ceasefires" and suggested that a ceasefire period should not be included in the 60-day timeframe, this is a political interpretation rather than a clearly codified legal exemption.

The 60-Day Deadline: The 60-day limit (beginning with reports of hostilities on Feb. 28, 2026, or notification on March 2, 2026) is viewed as expiring on or around April 29 to May 1, 2026.

30-Day Extension Restriction: The law allows a 30-day extension, but only for the safe withdrawal of troops, not for continuing an offensive war.

Ultimately, the enforcement of this deadline depends on Congressional action, as the War Powers Act requires the President to end hostilities if Congress does not authorize them, though in practice, this has been a source of legal contention between the executive and legislative branches

 

[Snowfall]

Here’s something hitting headlines,

Congress approval under the act.

Here is a quick AI Overview:

As of late April 2026, with the 60-day deadline for the Iran conflict approaching, it is legally debated whether a ceasefire pauses the clock under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. While some Republican lawmakers argue that a ceasefire should pause the 60-day count to allow for diplomacy, the statute itself does not explicitly pause the clock for a ceasefire.

Key Considerations on the 60-Day Clock:Clock Continues via Blockade: Even with a ceasefire in place, if the U.S. continues active military operations—such as naval blockades in the Strait of Hormuz—the 60-day clock continues to run.

Debate Over Ceasefire Pauses: While lawmakers like GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick have stated "you can't punish ceasefires" and suggested that a ceasefire period should not be included in the 60-day timeframe, this is a political interpretation rather than a clearly codified legal exemption.

The 60-Day Deadline: The 60-day limit (beginning with reports of hostilities on Feb. 28, 2026, or notification on March 2, 2026) is viewed as expiring on or around April 29 to May 1, 2026.

30-Day Extension Restriction: The law allows a 30-day extension, but only for the safe withdrawal of troops, not for continuing an offensive war.

Ultimately, the enforcement of this deadline depends on Congressional action, as the War Powers Act requires the President to end hostilities if Congress does not authorize them, though in practice, this has been a source of legal contention between the executive and legislative branches

Yeah that 60 days rule has been broke numerous times, unless congress does their job and actually enforces it I’d bet they ignore it.

 

[william]

So why did the U.S. launch an air campaign in the first place? And why were sanctions on Iranian oil lifted, effectively giving them billions of dollars that they’re now using to wait this out?

Why was Ali Larijani assassinated? All it seems to have done is consolidate power under the IRGC. Larijani was the only figure with undisputed authority across all sectors of Iranian power, including the IRGC, the clerical establishment, and the civilian government.

If the strategy is to wait for Iran to give up before they’re forced to cap their oil wells, it could take weeks before the U.S. decides enough is enough. The idea that Iran will surrender simply because of that pressure doesn’t make sense. Oil revenues account for less than half of Iran’s budget, and they are likely to respond by escalating money printing.

Before Iran reaches a breaking point, many Asian economies could suffer severe consequences. The aviation industry in India, for example, is already on the verge of shutting down.

Now, Trump has announced a shift toward an economic blockade. This raises the question: why launch an air campaign with objectives that were never fully achieved? Why not start with this approach from the beginning? And why lift sanctions on Iranian oil in the first week at all?

A permanent ceasefire seems unrealistic. Iran is likely to resume hostilities unilaterally once the blockade begins to seriously hurt. At this point, the current approach appears to be delaying the inevitable while accelerating global economic strain.

In effect, the U.S. is neither fully pursuing a negotiated deal nor committing to continued military action. Instead, it seems to be hoping that the IRGC will eventually capitulate under an oil blockade, even as the rest of the world absorbs the economic damage and other countries begin to struggle.

Meanwhile, Iran could still choose to escalate by targeting regional oil infrastructure regardless.

So what exactly is the plan?

I think the plan is for Iran not to go nuclear. You know, like North Korea.

 

[william]

Conducting negotiations through Truth Social, however, will continue as normal.

Gee, if this is the case you'd think this forum would be active in posting updates there. Kinda like Blue Sky.

 

[Sentry]

I think the plan is for Iran not to go nuclear. You know, like North Korea.

That is the goal, not the plan. The plan details how you intend to reach your goal. I thought Iran's nuclear material had been "obliterated" in June last year?

 

[RiffRaff]

Gee, if this is the case you'd think this forum would be active in posting updates there. Kinda like Blue Sky.

I honestly don't know if we have a presence on either of those two platforms. I do, personally, but nothing official for here.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

I honestly don't know if we have a presence on either of those two platforms. I do, personally, but nothing official for here.

We are on Blue Sky. The DEFCON Warning System (@defconwarningsystem.com)

 

[Friendly Engineer]

That is the goal, not the plan. The plan details how you intend to reach your goal. I thought Iran's nuclear material had been "obliterated" in June last year?

Could be that they just want enough enriched material to act as a deterrent, i.e. "we could put a bomb together in a week or two if we wanted" because they've been (or at least were, god knows how much material is left) that point for at least a few years.
They didn't go the full hog and assemble a bomb out of fear of getting nuked, because what use is 1 bomb for deterrence? and if they gave it to their terrorist buddies it'd definitely get back to Iran. If they tried to assemble a small but workable deterrent, say 10 warheads, Israel would figure something was up and attack before they could manage it.

Whereas just keeping the material enriched at 60% is enough not to incur a military response (or so they thought), but enough to deter. Maybe their long term plan was to give up the HEU in exchange for sanctions relief. God knows.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Making a threat to put a bomb together but never intending to doesn't make sense.

If you point a gun at someone, you'd better be willing to use it.

It's all academic now. With the IRGC in control, they're going to make a bomb now even if they weren't before.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Making a threat to put a bomb together but never intending to doesn't make sense.

If you point a gun at someone, you'd better be willing to use it.

It's all academic now. With the IRGC in control, they're going to make a bomb now even if they weren't before.

Maybe you're right, I dunno.
Hopefully the IRGC doesn't build one.

 

[teekay99]

Maybe you're right, I dunno.
Hopefully the IRGC doesn't build one.

How could they if their capability was, to use a word I've seen and heard somewhere, "obliterated"?

 

[NuclearID]

Making a threat to put a bomb together but never intending to doesn't make sense.

If you point a gun at someone, you'd better be willing to use it.

It's all academic now. With the IRGC in control, they're going to make a bomb now even if they weren't before.

This. This. This. Exactly this.

If the regime survives, I think it is almost guaranteed they rush for a bomb afterward.

At that point, even if they were previously using the nuclear program as leverage, the lesson they will take from this war is brutally simple... next time, have the bomb first. That is the North Korea lesson, and Tehran is not stupid enough to miss it.

This last part is speculation, but I would not put it past Russia or China to help Iran shortcut whatever gaps remain after the war, especially if the regime is still standing and furious.

Not openly of course. But technical help, materials, dual use support, missile integration, evasive procurement networks, intelligence sharing, whatever helps Iran harden itself against the next round.

So no, I do not buy the idea that leaving the regime in place simply returns things to the old status quo. It likely creates a much more desperate, paranoid, revenge driven regime with a stronger incentive to sprint for a weapon.

That is the core problem as you said... once you point the gun and survive the consequences, the next move is usually making sure the gun is loaded next time.

 

[Sentry]

Which is why this cannot be left halfway done. If you leave the IRGC in control, no matter what deal you make, they will go for the bomb anyway. Leaving this war right now leaves everyone worse off than before the war.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Which is why this cannot be left halfway done. If you leave the IRGC in control, no matter what deal you make, they will go for the bomb anyway. Leaving this war right now leaves everyone worse off than before the war.

I agree. But where the military wins, politics ends up losing the war.

I am not strongly confident the United States will prosecute the war all the way. My guess is that the current Iran government remains in place. As far as enrichment goes, there will probably some sort of compromise on Iran's part, but it won't be a permanent moratorium. The IAEA will still be blocked from inspections, and we'll be facing a more powerful Iran in the future.

Guaranteed that the next US President won't be so gung ho to hold Iran to the fire. So Iran just has to promise blah blah now and wait for 2 1/2 years.

 

[RiffRaff]

Guaranteed that the next US President won't be so gung ho to hold Iran to the fire. So Iran just has to promise blah blah now and wait for 2 1/2 years.

This. I think Iran's strategy now is to simply hunker down and try to outlast President Trump's desire to take them down. If the leadership has retreated to hardened bunkers where they can't be found or hit, Trump only has two options to "win" the war: A full ground invasion or nuclear weapons. You can't win a war using only conventional air strikes. Either way, the US loses in the end.

 

[Sentry]

For Iran to produce a nuclear weapon, they need to build new enrichment facilities and regather all their HEU that was buried deep underground. Operation Epic Fury has made zero progress in pushing back the nuclear timeline. The 12 Day War & Operation Midnight Hammer had already successfully neutralised Iran's nuclear programme, for the time being. There was no progress by Iran to restart it.

Tulsi Gabbard testified to congress and said the intelligence community had assessed Iran wasn't imminently going to produce a nuclear weapon.

I believe the IRGC must rot in hell, but this war has arguably strengthened them and put everyone in a worse situation than before. The goal of this operation was not eliminating the Iranian nuclear programme; that had already happened in Midnight Hammer last year. It was regime change, which has spectacularly failed and has put the IRGC hardliners in command instead. By bombing Iran and only going halfway through the operation, the US also installed a more hardline IRGC leadership that is more willing to expend Iran's economic resources for a nuclear program.

 

[Lostpuppy]

So the War is terminated, whats the consensus then?

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Iran wasn't imminently going to produce a nuclear weapon.

The operative word being "imminently". And what does that mean exactly? Tomorrow? Next month? Next year? Five years?

 

[teekay99]

In this video, Ryan McBeth briefly explains why Iran wants a nuclear bomb, why they might use one, and ultimately leading us to why they cannot have a nuclear weapon.

 

[Publius]

Which is why this cannot be left halfway done. If you leave the IRGC in control, no matter what deal you make, they will go for the bomb anyway. Leaving this war right now leaves everyone worse off than before the war.

And that is why the campaign started with comprehensive bombing.
I believe for any control of the gulf, the straight, and a blockade to work. The risk to US navel vessels had to be mitigated. Hence the bombing and not offering up singular targets afloat to missile barrage.

Now as to why it’s seems to be a ad hoc military diplomacy plan. It is very much in keeping with White House statements about never being specific of the consequences or options. One could argue it appears to be a poorly cobbled together overall plan.
I can’t or won’t argue if it is or isn’t.

I will point out that if you where to look at the totality of US diplomatic and military actions taken since Trump has returned to office.
Oil markets, production, diplomatic moves, and bilateral arrangements globally.
There is in my mind a plan there.
Secure the western hemisphere, secure access to Venezuela’s oil. Then damage to opec’s market caps. And yes even tariffs. There all designed to break the international trade paradigm of the last 50+ years.
It’s very much a return to nations negotiating and taking steps that are in their own national self interest. Including the US, irregardless of the consternation it is causing allies or trading partners.

After all the rules based world order of the last 50 years hasn’t really curtailed conflict or nuclear proliferation.