US Hits Iranian Minelayers, and Iran Targets US Airbase.

What do you believe, and who do you believe, about the current situation between the US and Iran? There are rumours of a draft peace deal from the Iranian side. This deal includes the stipulations that the US will withdraw its military from the region and lift the blockade on Iranian ports. However, the US has refuted this, it is a "total fabrication". Then there's the ongoing ceasefire, extremely shaky but still holding, or is it? The US struck Iranian minelayers from the air. The US justified this attack by saying these minelaying boats and the mines they were laying were a clear and present danger to US forces. The Iranians said the US action was a blatant "violation" of the ceasefire. Iran said, "The enemy (the US) should know that aggression will be answered in kind". And Iran struck back at a US airbase in a nearby Gulf country, like Qatar, which hosts a very large US military base, indeed. I'm not saying it was Qatar; it could have been the UAE, but certainly, if true, a US military facility in an Arab Gulf country.

There was a term from the First World War which outlasted this war, known as "No man's land", in other words, land that neither side owned or captured and acted as a buffer between the two sides. This is what the US and Iran are facing. This ceasefire is a ceasefire in name only. If the US and Iran can target each other on a whim, both sides are in a no-man's land of something that is a ceasefire, but because they can take potshots at each other, it is not a ceasefire. It's like being in limbo; it's neither one thing nor the other. It's a hybrid that says it's a ceasefire on paper, but it allows either side to attack if they deem it necessary. Are there any red flags in this agreement that say if one side does something that's threatening to the other, either side has the right to take action? Are there no caveats that allow each side to ask what the other side is doing before military action is enacted? Or is this ceasefire a break from war, so both sides, including Israel, which is already fighting Hezbollah, can take stock, rebuild and replenish military stocks?

As with everything these days, who is telling the truth? Do both sides want to go back to full-scale war? Which will cost the lives of civilian and military personnel. Which will be disastrous for the Middle East and the world beyond. It has already proved disastrous for the Western world as Iran has blocked the Straits of Hormuz. The US blockade of Iranian ports must be lethally hurting ordinary Iranians more than better-off ones already struggling with a crippled economy. A second round of war between all sides could be truly apocalyptic.

Oman and Iran have allegedly signed a deal to control the Strait of Hormuz. Trump said that if so, he would "blow up" Oman. Stating the Strait of Hormuz belongs to no one, no country, or no organisation. Trump said the US would never own or occupy the Strait of Hormuz but would watch over it to make sure shipping could pass through freely. Mr. Trump said Oman knows the rules of international shipping and would be foolish to join Iran in any such agreement to control the Straits of Hormuz. Iran has stated that it owns and will own the waterway in the Strait of Hormuz, and as Trump says, "We will have to see". Trump often uses inflammatory language for effect, and he often does not enact those words.

While many agree that neither Iran nor the US want to return to war, neither wants to look weak, either. So the language used is to make either side look tough in front of their domestic audience, the enemy audience, and the world in general.

All sides, despite the posturing, leave the media to sort out what is true and not true. They would do well to follow the words of Winston Churchill, "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war"!