Loading ...NO DEAL
Trump, by imposing a siege and violating the ceasefire, seeks to turn this negotiating table— in his own imagination— into a table of surrender or to justify renewed warmongering.
We do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats, and in the past two weeks, we have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield.
I was pondering what it means to lose face in a war situation. Trump from the beginning sought to humiliate the Iranian leadership into surrender. That was a big mistake, and I’m surprised his advisors did not warn him how that would only make the mullahs, who prioritize face over life, more entrenched, more obstinate, more suicidal in their fight. This comes from Grok but I knew the right questions, and the answers are based on history:
It’s a mistake in war to humiliate an adversary who prioritizes face (honor, dignity, reputation) over survival because it transforms a rational actor—who might otherwise accept defeat, negotiate, or surrender—into one driven by desperation, vengeance, or fanatical resistance. This shifts the conflict from one of calculated objectives (territory, resources, political goals) to an existential struggle where the humiliated side fights with reckless intensity, prolonging the war, inflating costs, and risking unnecessary escalation or reversal. The principle stems from ancient military thought, particularly Sun Tzu in The Art of War. He advises against fully cornering or shaming an enemy force:”When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” A surrounded army given a path to retreat fights less desperately; one with no escape battles to the death, inflicting disproportionate casualties on the victor.
Humiliation amplifies this by attacking not just the military position but the psychological and cultural core of the adversary—making retreat or concession feel like personal or national extinction. Cultures (or leaders) valuing “face” highly—common in honor-shame societies, hierarchical militaries, or authoritarian regimes—will prioritize restoring dignity through counterattack, martyrdom, or total war over pragmatic loss-minimization. The result: higher friction, morale surges on the humiliated side, and potential for “irrational” responses like guerrilla warfare, suicide tactics, or alliances born of shared resentment.Modern strategic writing echoes this: Don’t humiliate unless you intend (and can afford) to eliminate the opponent entirely. Otherwise, you create a permanent, motivated enemy who rebuilds, seeks revenge, or inspires successors.
Iranians place a particularly high value on face (dignity, honor, reputation, or “?beru”/”ab-e roo” in Persian)—far more than most Western cultures, often prioritizing it over purely pragmatic or material considerations in ways that can make humiliation especially risky in conflict or negotiation. This isn’t unique to them, but it is pronounced enough to shape behavior in politics, diplomacy, and war.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO REMOVE THE NUCLEAR THREAT THAT THESE NEANDERTHALS WOULD PRESENT SHOULD THEY COMPLETE THEIR GOAL OF ACQUIRING NUCLEAR BOMBS…..THE GOAL IS TO HUMILIATE THEM AND DESTROY THEIR CAPABILITY……THEY WILL NEVER ACTUALLY GIVE UP BUT THE GOAL IS TO SET THEM BACK TO THE STONE AGE WHERE IT WILL TAKE DECADES TO RECOVER…BY THEN THEY WILL BE DESTROYED BY THEIR SLAVES
THESE ANIMALS RECITED DEATH TO AMERICA BEFORE EVERY LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AND HAVE DOE SO FOR 5 DECADES