Trump might be receptive to Putin’s speculative peace plan for ending the Gulf and Ukrainian Conflicts at once in order for the global energy market to recover in time for early November’s midterms.
The problem is that, once the Americans and their european catamites are bailed out, they'll be right back at it, Americans starting asinine wars for Israel while europeans skulk and whisper and plot in dark corners.
I agree - the Europeans seem convince they can ride out 3 more years of Trump and align themselves with a new nicer Democratic President that will hate the Russians as much as we do and somehow undo the genocide and bombing Iran.
Trump is not a new more aggressive US leader, he is old style US aggression with a bit more honesty about it.
Even if Russia could bail Trump out and let him save face, it wouldn't matter unless Israel was made happy as Trump is Netanyahu's puppet with less authority than a butler.
Nonproliferation is a legitimate concern unlike WMDs. Remember when Obama refused to invade Syria because Assad deployed chemical weapons?? Republicans went nuts but Obama held firm. Trump has gone back to the Reagan/Clinton model for using the military—achieve air supremacy and then apply leverage. Btw, both Reagan and Clinton suffered major causalities even though they didn’t put boots on the ground and so it’s very difficult to execute a major military operation with zero hostile action deaths.
Careful - Syria was never shown to deploy Chemical weapons - the OPCW determined that ISIS related terrorists used them not Assad/Syria.
The one exception was Dhouma when the original technical report was over written by OPCW managers. The original writers complained, there was a huge row at UN, but no media reported on it at all.
Of course Trump has already lead a Nato bombing of Syria as punishment so it was very important to CIA that the OPCW found Syria guilty. (it was a strange bombing, destroying a milk powder factory on the outskirts of Damascus - though US claimed it has punished Assad for using CW on civilians by bombing a CW factory in the Damascus suburbs...)
In Obama's time, Russia stepped in and removed Syrian existing undeployed weapons with US observers.
Tens of thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons precursor raw material originating in Germany had been moved into Syria from Jordan for transfer into the hands of Al Nusra and ISIS -affiliated militants for staging a Union Carbide-Bhopal-gas- style mass-murder of civilians with the intermediation of White Helmet cadre. But the contraband was intercepted and seized by Syrian police thanks to a tipoff from Russian intelligence prompted by satellite data.
Thanks. This also links to Obama's Red Line on Syria that if Assad used CW on civilians then the US would be obliged to attack.
Clearly intelligence groups in US and UK were closely linked to Al Nusra/ISIS groups and were keen to encourage them to create CW scares with MI6/White helmets "showing the evidence".
I'm not sure whether Obama knew he was creating a perfect excuse to bomb Syria, or whether he just got mouse-trapped into it by CIA/Israel. But credit to him, he did seem to work out what was going on, and refused to get sucked in further which doing a good job of pretending US was not involved.
I'm sure Putin has a lot of good intentions, but it won't be that easy.
For Ukraine there is the poison pill that CIA/MI6 put in - the constitution commits Ukraine to attack the new Russian oblasts, and nothing happens till after an elections, and the only certainty is that none of the current regime in Kiev gets elected. So 2 years before any solution other than a total capitulation to Russia (which Russia won't want - they want someone else to take responsibility for W Ukraine).
For US there is the Netanyaju scripted poison pill - if US pulls out then Iran can destroy Israel, leaving US looking incredibly weak and unable to protect their major client. At which point the markets realise there is no Military force behind the Dollar. And Israel considers using its nukes on Iran.
So while a partial US withdrawal from the region is feasible and will get USA out of it, a withdrawal where US can trust Iran not to destroy Israel an Israel not to use nukes is hard to imagine. Even if a deal could be imagined, USA or Israel negotiating it and being taken at face value cannot .
This perfectly logical proposal requires both the Trump Administration and the EU leadership to be rational actors. Lol, have you seen any signs of rationality from them lately?
Perhaps you are projecting Russian reasonability onto them, which as refreshing as I may find that instead of legendary Russian pessimism, appears insane to those whom the gods have already driven mad.
“if European companies, European buyers suddenly decide to reorient themselves and provide us with long-term, sustainable cooperation devoid of political considerations, free from political considerations – we can accommodate them, we have never turned them down.”
European companies & European buyers? Yes. But European politicians? They will resist like the devil in holy water, but maybe, in the end, when push comes to shove, they will simply have to. Good analysis, Andrew, thanks!
....and why would Iran let Russia take the uranium? Why would Iran do something that gets very close to surrendering, when it is obvious they are venomously decided to fight until a more satisfactory end?
Imho, Iran's objective is clearly - since they cant defeat either Israel or the US - to pressure neighbouring countries into expelling or limiting their US base's activities or, bar that, get a truce where the US and Israel, or at least the US, specifically give up on limiting IRan's missile forces in any way (with the nuclear potential offered as a fake compromise - sort of, we Iran solemny promise to do what we were already doing, as in not developing an atomic bomb, but we keep everything else). I can't imagine Iran, at the moment, accepting anything less than this. Why should they? This is a do or die moment for them and more importantly for the regime itself.
The problem is, Israel probably has a lot of Kompromat against Trump, and hence leverage. Rational solutions are unlikely to work. I would reverse engineer the whole thing. Leak one of those videos showing Trump having s*x with an underage girl, which removes both Trump and Israel's leverage (come on, Russians, you must have a least one or two copies of those ???). Let Vance then apply elementary logic to find a rational off ramp.
Apparently, sinking a couple dozen ships - only a fraction of them being actual warships - and random bombings are supposed to have demilitarized a country that is renown for missiles and drones. Which are still there. Go figure....
‘some of his advisors now “Urge Him to Find Iran Exit Ramp” as oil prices surge and most voters remain opposed to the war.’
In common language: Orange Man starts learning now that he followed Bibi into a political quagmire like a blind donkey.
‘Iran still possesses its highly enriched uranium. About that, the US is reportedly considering capturing it, but the operation would be huge and could end up very costly in many ways.’
The problem with a dozen metallic drums containing the highly enriched uranium is that by now it can be hiding under the barn of any cow farm safely. It would be ‘mission impossible’. Considering that Iran’s new leader has some personal issues related to this war it is almost guaranteed that an all out effort will be made to produce a dozen nuclear bombs. I am expecting the first Manhattan Project type test explosion to take place within two years but if China/Russia help kicks in that might be one year only. Since Iran already has the capacity to stick those nuclear devices to the tip of a hypersonic missile the act will immediately pacify Israhell. From that point on the North Korean path will be followed and peace will prevail.
I know the brazilian inexistence. I know the Indian volatility. I know the chinese timidity and I know that alone, Russia can't fight all western empire.
I've seen Poutine throwing the gauntlet in Kazan BRICS summit and I've seen abject coward BICS, horrified , crying madly to USA that they didn't agree with that rebellion. Big, big humiliation for Poutine and Russia and more over, the end of the dream for a true multipolar world.
I don't know why Iran never wanted the alliance with Russia thought Poutine proposed that twice.
I don't know what is the true position of China and how such an economic giant can be such a coward dwarf diplomatically
I don't know if Poutine know that Russia is close of the break down and to much weak to do nothing else that trying to save what can be .
I see that they are not ready to stand firm and assume a sovereign position.
All of that, everywhere in global south, smell very strong defeat and submission.
They wanted a good place at the table? But not reverse that table? They will keep on eating the crumbs on the floor
China is not only an economic giant as you say, but a giant also militarily, industrially, technologically, culturally etc. - those are the reasons why they manage to be a giant economically. Because without any of that, they would have already been overrun by someone in the "Great Game" jungle. You see they know this better than nearly everybody - heard of the Century of Humiliation? You are unlikely to find a single Chinese not knowing what that means.
Then you might want to ask yourself, of all the countries in the world, how come they managed to get to this position, why not India (richer than China 5 decades ago)? Or indeed Russia? Even the supposedly "mighty" USA? I suspect you don't know, or at least you aren't sure. I would rather you find out for yourself, if you are interested.
But one of the consequences of that includes how they look at wars fundamentally differently to us - are you aware that Sun Tzu said fighting 100 wars and winning all 100 wars is not the epitome of skill - winning without fighting is?
The goal of this kind of forum, for me, is not to prove that your point of view is the best. The goal is to confront knowledge, points of view, reasoning.
So, I thank you for your post.
And I recognise that "coward" was excessive and not what I exactly wanted to say but I don't find an english word. What I wanted to say was rather "excessively cautious".
However, the ancient and legendary wisdom of Chinese didn't protect them against the wild strength of every barbarian wave which invaded it thought the centuries.
The last were the Westerners.
But before this century of humiliation, there was others.
Historically, China is not used to project its power otherwise that with trade and finance.
Thanks! Agreed ancient wisdom did not protect them, against the Mongols, or the Manchu, before the "Westerners". Perhaps superiority inevitably breeds complacency over time.
It sure is frustrating watching from afar re their "excessive cautiousness" - imagine how much more frustrating it would be to stay one's hands, in their shoes...
Then as a perpetual student of geopolitics I ask myself, would I have been able to, in their shoes in such a short time, seen to that hostile, super-rich, greatest military power the planet has ever seen turned into a financial wreck, pivoting back home, with its soft power disappearing between its legs? By me "seemingly doing nothing"? Perhaps "seemingly doing nothing" is not quite the same as "doing nothing", and that, is what it means and what it takes to win without fighting.
You mentioned that demilitarization has been largely achieved. Could you elaborate on why it has been largely achieved, since the attacks have mostly focused on the western half of the country and despite fluctuations Iran's offensive actions do not seem to be stopping. What I see is heavy damages to the airforce and navy, but in the context of this war these conventional forces were never going to be useful anyway.
The conditions under which Iran will agree to any deal is, in the optimistic case a comprehensive removal of sanctions, and in the pessimistic case coercion though very extensive damages to civilian/military infrastructure and civilians in general. Do you think it's likely that any removal of sanctions could be in the cards? Personally I have a hard time seeing the US/Israel agreeing to that at all, but at the same time Iran can inflict severe damages to US economic/military interests across the Persian Gulf, as well as to Israel.
1) In his words, “if European companies, European buyers suddenly decide to reorient themselves and provide us with long-term, sustainable cooperation devoid of political considerations, free from political considerations – we can accommodate them, we have never turned them down”.
Mr. Putin is completely delusional about the EU policies, just as he was about Ukraine and their brotherly feelings towards Russians. There are NO POLITICAL FORCES in the EU to provoke a significant policy change, at least for the next 15 to 20 years ahead. The Grün candidate has just won the Baden-Württemberg elections. The Grün !!! after all the damage this party has so far done to Germany with the purpose of destroying her relationship with Russia.
2) The population in the EU countries is many times more mixed up than the population in the ex-soviet bloc 10 to 15 years before the collapse of their system (1989-1990). This population is unable to move a finger against the current rulers, let alone to organize itself in a political force, until the lack of resources and HUNGER will bite mercilessly.
3) If Mr. Putin gets back into some kind of relationship with Mr. Trump, I have heard of many important Russians that would like to make him go.
I think the analysis falls a bit short as it fails to address a fundamental question: "if hostilities seize, again, what prevents the Epstein coalition, empirically beholden to nothing less than 'might makes right', from resuming them?".
Iran has been severely attacked and massive injustice has been bestowed upon it. It's spiritual leader murdered in a cowardly way like many others before, the country witness a lot of destruction even though it didn't attack first nor was it planning to, there was the recent government overthrowal attempt which was not the first one and so on. And it all was done while it was in a negotiation process, just like the previous time where one needs to be blind not see that the US negotiates in bad faith. Again, they KNOW, up to the lowest cadre that after a supposed ceasefire the US and Israel will repeat it again because they know the Epstein coalition is agreement incapable. Israeli bombs haven't seized being dropped on both Gaza and southern Beirut after the ceasefire came into effect. Israel never seized its attacks while the belligerents did.
Iran won't hand over its enriched uranium to the Russians. What would it earn from it? A tiny reprieve in its destruction? Peace keepers also won't effect any change as we can witness live in Lebanon. As strange as it sounds, the only way I can see this can be settled in peace is under 2 conditions that should be met simultaneously, their aggressors seemingly get a decent beating AND they have The Bomb which would refrain Israel from further attacking it. Khamenei senior who blocked developing nukes is no more.
Otherwise I only see escalation with a protracted war depleting the US war chest or the use of nukes.
(And Zelensky is nothing more than a Western sock puppet. Remove his MI6 security detail and his tune instantly flips. He does as he's being told. If CIA and MI6 tell him 'make peace with the Russians', he makes peaces instantly.)
One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that the Western MIC, both in the EU and U.S., has been heavily infiltrated by foreign agents due to liberal-globalist social engineering. Open borders were and are a Trojan horse, designed to aid Islamists. Many of the Muslims employed in strategic positions have no doubt been leaking intelligence to the Iranians, with the support of liberal-globalist actors. This likely accounts, at least in part, for the lack of a decisive U.S.–Israeli win thus far.
Putin has shown his wisdom yet again by not striking at the Ukrainian leadership, and by refusing to geographicly expand the war, by not engaging in terror attacks. Look at the terrible situation the US has landed itself in by doing all 3.
The problem is that, once the Americans and their european catamites are bailed out, they'll be right back at it, Americans starting asinine wars for Israel while europeans skulk and whisper and plot in dark corners.
I agree - the Europeans seem convince they can ride out 3 more years of Trump and align themselves with a new nicer Democratic President that will hate the Russians as much as we do and somehow undo the genocide and bombing Iran.
Trump is not a new more aggressive US leader, he is old style US aggression with a bit more honesty about it.
Even if Russia could bail Trump out and let him save face, it wouldn't matter unless Israel was made happy as Trump is Netanyahu's puppet with less authority than a butler.
Nonproliferation is a legitimate concern unlike WMDs. Remember when Obama refused to invade Syria because Assad deployed chemical weapons?? Republicans went nuts but Obama held firm. Trump has gone back to the Reagan/Clinton model for using the military—achieve air supremacy and then apply leverage. Btw, both Reagan and Clinton suffered major causalities even though they didn’t put boots on the ground and so it’s very difficult to execute a major military operation with zero hostile action deaths.
Careful - Syria was never shown to deploy Chemical weapons - the OPCW determined that ISIS related terrorists used them not Assad/Syria.
The one exception was Dhouma when the original technical report was over written by OPCW managers. The original writers complained, there was a huge row at UN, but no media reported on it at all.
Of course Trump has already lead a Nato bombing of Syria as punishment so it was very important to CIA that the OPCW found Syria guilty. (it was a strange bombing, destroying a milk powder factory on the outskirts of Damascus - though US claimed it has punished Assad for using CW on civilians by bombing a CW factory in the Damascus suburbs...)
In Obama's time, Russia stepped in and removed Syrian existing undeployed weapons with US observers.
Republicans going nuts is just standard.
Tens of thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons precursor raw material originating in Germany had been moved into Syria from Jordan for transfer into the hands of Al Nusra and ISIS -affiliated militants for staging a Union Carbide-Bhopal-gas- style mass-murder of civilians with the intermediation of White Helmet cadre. But the contraband was intercepted and seized by Syrian police thanks to a tipoff from Russian intelligence prompted by satellite data.
Thanks. This also links to Obama's Red Line on Syria that if Assad used CW on civilians then the US would be obliged to attack.
Clearly intelligence groups in US and UK were closely linked to Al Nusra/ISIS groups and were keen to encourage them to create CW scares with MI6/White helmets "showing the evidence".
I'm not sure whether Obama knew he was creating a perfect excuse to bomb Syria, or whether he just got mouse-trapped into it by CIA/Israel. But credit to him, he did seem to work out what was going on, and refused to get sucked in further which doing a good job of pretending US was not involved.
Dr. Andrew, this was a very good analysis. Hopefully, it will be read by decision-makers. Keep up the great writing.
I'm sure Putin has a lot of good intentions, but it won't be that easy.
For Ukraine there is the poison pill that CIA/MI6 put in - the constitution commits Ukraine to attack the new Russian oblasts, and nothing happens till after an elections, and the only certainty is that none of the current regime in Kiev gets elected. So 2 years before any solution other than a total capitulation to Russia (which Russia won't want - they want someone else to take responsibility for W Ukraine).
For US there is the Netanyaju scripted poison pill - if US pulls out then Iran can destroy Israel, leaving US looking incredibly weak and unable to protect their major client. At which point the markets realise there is no Military force behind the Dollar. And Israel considers using its nukes on Iran.
So while a partial US withdrawal from the region is feasible and will get USA out of it, a withdrawal where US can trust Iran not to destroy Israel an Israel not to use nukes is hard to imagine. Even if a deal could be imagined, USA or Israel negotiating it and being taken at face value cannot .
This perfectly logical proposal requires both the Trump Administration and the EU leadership to be rational actors. Lol, have you seen any signs of rationality from them lately?
Perhaps you are projecting Russian reasonability onto them, which as refreshing as I may find that instead of legendary Russian pessimism, appears insane to those whom the gods have already driven mad.
“if European companies, European buyers suddenly decide to reorient themselves and provide us with long-term, sustainable cooperation devoid of political considerations, free from political considerations – we can accommodate them, we have never turned them down.”
European companies & European buyers? Yes. But European politicians? They will resist like the devil in holy water, but maybe, in the end, when push comes to shove, they will simply have to. Good analysis, Andrew, thanks!
....and why would Iran let Russia take the uranium? Why would Iran do something that gets very close to surrendering, when it is obvious they are venomously decided to fight until a more satisfactory end?
Imho, Iran's objective is clearly - since they cant defeat either Israel or the US - to pressure neighbouring countries into expelling or limiting their US base's activities or, bar that, get a truce where the US and Israel, or at least the US, specifically give up on limiting IRan's missile forces in any way (with the nuclear potential offered as a fake compromise - sort of, we Iran solemny promise to do what we were already doing, as in not developing an atomic bomb, but we keep everything else). I can't imagine Iran, at the moment, accepting anything less than this. Why should they? This is a do or die moment for them and more importantly for the regime itself.
The problem is, Israel probably has a lot of Kompromat against Trump, and hence leverage. Rational solutions are unlikely to work. I would reverse engineer the whole thing. Leak one of those videos showing Trump having s*x with an underage girl, which removes both Trump and Israel's leverage (come on, Russians, you must have a least one or two copies of those ???). Let Vance then apply elementary logic to find a rational off ramp.
Not certain to understand what you mean by stating that Iran is currently being demilitarised…
Apparently, sinking a couple dozen ships - only a fraction of them being actual warships - and random bombings are supposed to have demilitarized a country that is renown for missiles and drones. Which are still there. Go figure....
"If Israel rejects peace, then the US can just let it fight on its own." Hah! as if that is a possibility now.
‘some of his advisors now “Urge Him to Find Iran Exit Ramp” as oil prices surge and most voters remain opposed to the war.’
In common language: Orange Man starts learning now that he followed Bibi into a political quagmire like a blind donkey.
‘Iran still possesses its highly enriched uranium. About that, the US is reportedly considering capturing it, but the operation would be huge and could end up very costly in many ways.’
The problem with a dozen metallic drums containing the highly enriched uranium is that by now it can be hiding under the barn of any cow farm safely. It would be ‘mission impossible’. Considering that Iran’s new leader has some personal issues related to this war it is almost guaranteed that an all out effort will be made to produce a dozen nuclear bombs. I am expecting the first Manhattan Project type test explosion to take place within two years but if China/Russia help kicks in that might be one year only. Since Iran already has the capacity to stick those nuclear devices to the tip of a hypersonic missile the act will immediately pacify Israhell. From that point on the North Korean path will be followed and peace will prevail.
I have a lot of unknown factors.
So, it's difficult to have an opinion.
I know the brazilian inexistence. I know the Indian volatility. I know the chinese timidity and I know that alone, Russia can't fight all western empire.
I've seen Poutine throwing the gauntlet in Kazan BRICS summit and I've seen abject coward BICS, horrified , crying madly to USA that they didn't agree with that rebellion. Big, big humiliation for Poutine and Russia and more over, the end of the dream for a true multipolar world.
I don't know why Iran never wanted the alliance with Russia thought Poutine proposed that twice.
I don't know what is the true position of China and how such an economic giant can be such a coward dwarf diplomatically
I don't know if Poutine know that Russia is close of the break down and to much weak to do nothing else that trying to save what can be .
I see that they are not ready to stand firm and assume a sovereign position.
All of that, everywhere in global south, smell very strong defeat and submission.
They wanted a good place at the table? But not reverse that table? They will keep on eating the crumbs on the floor
China cowardly? Haha.
China is not only an economic giant as you say, but a giant also militarily, industrially, technologically, culturally etc. - those are the reasons why they manage to be a giant economically. Because without any of that, they would have already been overrun by someone in the "Great Game" jungle. You see they know this better than nearly everybody - heard of the Century of Humiliation? You are unlikely to find a single Chinese not knowing what that means.
Then you might want to ask yourself, of all the countries in the world, how come they managed to get to this position, why not India (richer than China 5 decades ago)? Or indeed Russia? Even the supposedly "mighty" USA? I suspect you don't know, or at least you aren't sure. I would rather you find out for yourself, if you are interested.
But one of the consequences of that includes how they look at wars fundamentally differently to us - are you aware that Sun Tzu said fighting 100 wars and winning all 100 wars is not the epitome of skill - winning without fighting is?
Hope you find this rambling of interest.
Yes, very, thank you.
The goal of this kind of forum, for me, is not to prove that your point of view is the best. The goal is to confront knowledge, points of view, reasoning.
So, I thank you for your post.
And I recognise that "coward" was excessive and not what I exactly wanted to say but I don't find an english word. What I wanted to say was rather "excessively cautious".
However, the ancient and legendary wisdom of Chinese didn't protect them against the wild strength of every barbarian wave which invaded it thought the centuries.
The last were the Westerners.
But before this century of humiliation, there was others.
Historically, China is not used to project its power otherwise that with trade and finance.
Westerners are fundamentally looters and pirates.
Thanks! Agreed ancient wisdom did not protect them, against the Mongols, or the Manchu, before the "Westerners". Perhaps superiority inevitably breeds complacency over time.
It sure is frustrating watching from afar re their "excessive cautiousness" - imagine how much more frustrating it would be to stay one's hands, in their shoes...
Then as a perpetual student of geopolitics I ask myself, would I have been able to, in their shoes in such a short time, seen to that hostile, super-rich, greatest military power the planet has ever seen turned into a financial wreck, pivoting back home, with its soft power disappearing between its legs? By me "seemingly doing nothing"? Perhaps "seemingly doing nothing" is not quite the same as "doing nothing", and that, is what it means and what it takes to win without fighting.
Thank you for a great piece Andrew.
You mentioned that demilitarization has been largely achieved. Could you elaborate on why it has been largely achieved, since the attacks have mostly focused on the western half of the country and despite fluctuations Iran's offensive actions do not seem to be stopping. What I see is heavy damages to the airforce and navy, but in the context of this war these conventional forces were never going to be useful anyway.
The conditions under which Iran will agree to any deal is, in the optimistic case a comprehensive removal of sanctions, and in the pessimistic case coercion though very extensive damages to civilian/military infrastructure and civilians in general. Do you think it's likely that any removal of sanctions could be in the cards? Personally I have a hard time seeing the US/Israel agreeing to that at all, but at the same time Iran can inflict severe damages to US economic/military interests across the Persian Gulf, as well as to Israel.
1) In his words, “if European companies, European buyers suddenly decide to reorient themselves and provide us with long-term, sustainable cooperation devoid of political considerations, free from political considerations – we can accommodate them, we have never turned them down”.
Mr. Putin is completely delusional about the EU policies, just as he was about Ukraine and their brotherly feelings towards Russians. There are NO POLITICAL FORCES in the EU to provoke a significant policy change, at least for the next 15 to 20 years ahead. The Grün candidate has just won the Baden-Württemberg elections. The Grün !!! after all the damage this party has so far done to Germany with the purpose of destroying her relationship with Russia.
2) The population in the EU countries is many times more mixed up than the population in the ex-soviet bloc 10 to 15 years before the collapse of their system (1989-1990). This population is unable to move a finger against the current rulers, let alone to organize itself in a political force, until the lack of resources and HUNGER will bite mercilessly.
3) If Mr. Putin gets back into some kind of relationship with Mr. Trump, I have heard of many important Russians that would like to make him go.
I think the analysis falls a bit short as it fails to address a fundamental question: "if hostilities seize, again, what prevents the Epstein coalition, empirically beholden to nothing less than 'might makes right', from resuming them?".
Iran has been severely attacked and massive injustice has been bestowed upon it. It's spiritual leader murdered in a cowardly way like many others before, the country witness a lot of destruction even though it didn't attack first nor was it planning to, there was the recent government overthrowal attempt which was not the first one and so on. And it all was done while it was in a negotiation process, just like the previous time where one needs to be blind not see that the US negotiates in bad faith. Again, they KNOW, up to the lowest cadre that after a supposed ceasefire the US and Israel will repeat it again because they know the Epstein coalition is agreement incapable. Israeli bombs haven't seized being dropped on both Gaza and southern Beirut after the ceasefire came into effect. Israel never seized its attacks while the belligerents did.
Iran won't hand over its enriched uranium to the Russians. What would it earn from it? A tiny reprieve in its destruction? Peace keepers also won't effect any change as we can witness live in Lebanon. As strange as it sounds, the only way I can see this can be settled in peace is under 2 conditions that should be met simultaneously, their aggressors seemingly get a decent beating AND they have The Bomb which would refrain Israel from further attacking it. Khamenei senior who blocked developing nukes is no more.
Otherwise I only see escalation with a protracted war depleting the US war chest or the use of nukes.
(And Zelensky is nothing more than a Western sock puppet. Remove his MI6 security detail and his tune instantly flips. He does as he's being told. If CIA and MI6 tell him 'make peace with the Russians', he makes peaces instantly.)
One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that the Western MIC, both in the EU and U.S., has been heavily infiltrated by foreign agents due to liberal-globalist social engineering. Open borders were and are a Trojan horse, designed to aid Islamists. Many of the Muslims employed in strategic positions have no doubt been leaking intelligence to the Iranians, with the support of liberal-globalist actors. This likely accounts, at least in part, for the lack of a decisive U.S.–Israeli win thus far.
Putin has shown his wisdom yet again by not striking at the Ukrainian leadership, and by refusing to geographicly expand the war, by not engaging in terror attacks. Look at the terrible situation the US has landed itself in by doing all 3.