39
Trump climbs down on Iran strikes after Saudi alarm and threats from Tehran (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Donald Trump said on Saturday night that the US would hold off on any new strikes on Iran provided a deal to end the months-long conflict is quickly reached – marking the president’s latest climbdown from extravagant threats to hit the Tehran regime hard.

The Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman called Trump on Saturday to express concerns about his strike plans, it was reported. Trump’s reversal also came after Iran threatened to retaliate decisively against its neighbours in the event of US strikes, while Kuwait reported being hit by Iranian drones on Saturday and two ships were attacked off Oman in the strait of Hormuz.

One source described as having knowledge of the Trump-Mohammed call told Axios that the Saudi crown prince had “urged Trump to de-escalate and refrain from launching the strikes”.

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 14 points 3 months ago (1 child)

"Trump climbs down on" - What a very odd turn of phrase.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So Trump is threatening to bring "military terror" to Iran if they don't meet his demands.

    Does that make the US a "terrorist state"?

    Just wondering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    TACO

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    Taco taco, burrito

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Can this be anything other than blatant oil price manipulation at this point?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    He doesn't have much choice, this isn't popular at home and soon he will need to go to Congress for permission to continue. Already the deadlines have past but it seems like he is looking for loopholes, which would not allow an escalation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    He didn't go to congress three months ago, or three months before that and it doesn't seem particularly focused on making him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    3 months ago he didn't have to. Now he is sitting a grey area by trying to claim the end of the crease fire resets the clock on going to Congress (at least that is my guess, I have not seen anything official). However that clock is still counting and while it isn't clear when to start it is clear that eventually he will have to go to Congress of he can't restart it somehow

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Wouldn't the congres have to vote on the MOU implementation. Will they really vote yes to give all those consessions to Iran?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Not clear. However with the war unpopular at home anyone in the house will be looking at elections. If you don't like the MOU you want those loopholes so your vote for war isn't used against you in advertisements.

    This is a tough question. I don't like the current situation but is it enough for war? I hate war more in the end, but I can see why others would disagree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent