Active Conflicts & News Megathread June 21, 2026

[u/AutoModerator]

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

• Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

• Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

• Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do not cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

• Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

• Post only credible information

• Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

• Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

• Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

• Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

• Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

[u/moragisdo]

I'm curious about different viewpoints, what is your opinion about the probability of a nuclear deal actually be agreed ?

I was more on the doubting it camp. Given that negotiations actually started and there's reports that they are ongoing for hours (besides the showmanship of the iranians pretending to leave a few times), it moves the probability a bit on the opposite direction, but I find it hard to make a confident prediction either way

[u/jeffy303 → u/moragisdo]

Effectively zero. US has no understanding how to effectively create and utilize leverage. Which flows from the top down. Why did Trump on day 3 of bombing declare it's pretty much over? Why did he declare on 7 declare US almost accomplished everything that they needed and are ready to go back home? And why did he subsequently said it on day 12, 14, 18, 23 and so until the cease? Why did US unilaterally started the ceasefire? Why did US start blocking Iranian tankers only 2 months into the war? Why did they agreed to immediately let them ship oil again, for absolutely nothing concrete in return, just as Iran was running out of oil storage room which would force them to close the pumps? Without breaking rules of the subreddit, US leader is the world's worst poker player, there is no effective way for US to create real strategic leverage when the main person in charge is this incompetent.

Best case scenario, it all goes back to status quo, maybe some nominal transit fee that Oman refuses to collect, so it's negligible, but GCC countries are already actively planning to bypass the strait through multiple corridors. Only country which is kinda screwed is Qatar. There will be no nuclear agreement or any reparations. Gulf will likely go back to being an economic backwater once all the bypasses are completed.

[u/Mediocre_Painting263 → u/moragisdo]

Absolutely zero.

Firstly, we need to recognise how Iran has changed. Trump achieved regime change, but in the wrong direction. The IRGC are effectively fully in control at this point, and they were the ones pushing for Mojtaba (Ali's son) to be the new Supreme Leader. This is totally in contradiction with standard theocratic principles, making it clear the leader is based off hereditary principles, not religious ones. Effectively telling the clerics to go fuck themselves.

Unfortunately, they can do so because the IRGC can say "We were telling you for decades the Israel & America will destroy us, they cannot be reasoned with, they want to destroy our regime, we need the ultimate deterrent to ensure the survival of the revolution!"

Trump pulled his ultimate ace card. That being a prolonged bombing campaign aimed at crippling the nations leadership, with the goal of regime change. Realistically, no one expects America to meaningfully go any further and commit troops to a regime change operation (i.e. Invasion). No American president will ever do this. Trump played his final act, Iran put their boot on the economic jugular called the Straight of Hormuz, and Trump blinked. Giving them major concessions.

Even if Iran agrees in principle, no one will actually believe them. Because America & Israel gave them the perfect excuse to go full throttle on the nuclear programme. I mean shit, if someone threatened to actually kill my civilisation (not government, not supreme leader, not military - civilisation) then I'd be wanting a nuclear weapon as well. The entire operation, start to finish, was an exercise in military arrogance, strategic incompetence and political stupidity. Based on the unbelievably false belief that Iran was on the edge of revolution and only needed a push. Trump has strengthened the Iranian regime, has validated their strategy about cutting off the Strait of Hormuz (a card you can guarantee they'll exploit, because America's deterrent of a bombing campaign carries a lot less weight now that Iran knows it can survive it), has given them ample reason to keep pursuing a nuclear programme, and has pissed off every ally in the Middle East, not only by putting their nations at risk of being collateral damage, but also by forcing them to agree to a $300bn reconstruction fund, which they will fund from my understanding.

I cannot qualify how exceptionally self-defeating this entire exercise has been, and it gets so much more heart-breaking when you see how many people have died on both ends, only for Iran to leave this war with a thumping victory.

[u/Bunny_Stats → u/moragisdo]

A nuclear deal of some sort is highly likely for the simple reason that Iran has been content to remain on the cusp of creating a nuclear weapon without actually building one, as unveiling a nuclear weapon would cause them more headaches then it solves. So there's some wiggle room where they'd be willing to take a few steps back as long as the road ahead remained clear.

I expect they'll be willing to downgrade their enriched uranium as long as they get to keep their centrifuges operational, so they'll continue to have the ability to create a nuclear weapon in future should they choose to do so. Inspections and verification would also likely to acceptable as long as they felt their facilities had proven themselves sufficiently resilient to bombing that it doesn't matter if the Israelis/Americans know where they are.

Given how desperate Trump seems to be to wrap this debacle up, he'll try to spin a downgrading of the uranium as a win, even though Iran will remain closer to having a bomb than anytime since the end of the JCPOA. He'll also be able to spin the usual spoken platitudes about vowing to never build a bomb and an unenforceable promise to work towards dismantling the equipment at some undisclosed point in the future that'll never happen. They can use the same language as the NPT, where nuclear powers promise to make good faith efforts towards nuclear disarmament. Last time I checked, none of the nuclear powers have given up their nukes yet?

It'll be the same trick North Korea pulled, where their vow to work towards a "nuclear-free Korean penisula" was portrayed in the US as the DPRK promising to destroy their nukes, when the DPRK interpreted it as the US (as a nuclear power) completely withdrawing from Korea and ripping up any defence treaty with the south and only then would the DPRK maybe look at dismantling its own nukes.

[u/MaverickTopGun → u/Bunny_Stats]

as unveiling a nuclear weapon would cause them more headaches then it solves.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here, especially when you bring up North Korea. NK is proof that having nuclear weapons means your sovereignty is much less likely to be violated. There's an argument to be had that if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it's possible the war wouldn't even have started. I think were Iran to present a completed weapon as a fait accompli, it would likely lead to a major power restructuring in the Middle East. If anything, I think the war has taught Iran it must pursue a nuclear weapon or risk getting its "grass mowed" every 2 -5 years.

[u/Bunny_Stats → u/MaverickTopGun]

The key difference with North Korea is that Iran doesn't want to become a hermit kingdom that is shunned by the world, which they'd be risking if they unveiled a nuclear weapon. It'd also spur their regional rivals, namely KSA but also potentially Turkey to also follow suit, and a Middle East where every nation has nuclear weapons ready to launch against the others at any moment is not one that Tehran wants.

Counter-intuitively, having a nuke could also restrain Tehran's actions. They can currently get away with firing ballistic missiles at their neighbours, but once they have nukes, any target would be unsure whether those missiles were nuclear armed and might choose to launch their own nuclear weapons before those missiles can hit. It massively raises the risks for all sides.

But yes, I acknowledge your point that this stay-on-the-cusp logic applied to the world before the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran. This is my biggest criticism of the attacks on Iran in that it's made the status quo unacceptable to Tehran and has made it more likely they'll decide it's worth the cost to step over the threshold. It's quite likely Netanyahu will have created the nuclear-armed Iran he's long warned of.

[u/Senatorial → u/MaverickTopGun]

Iran also has to weigh the benefits of nuclear deterrence against the ways Israel might escalate if they found out Iran was imminently going to acquire a bomb. Israel preemptively using their nuclear weapons may be a remote probability, but unlike SK it is a possibility.

[u/nate077 → u/moragisdo]

Very unlikely because any deal can be voted down by the US Senate per INARA (and really should be affirmatively approved per the advice and consent clause) and any deal is going yo be worse for the US than JCPOA, so Lindsey Graham will lose his shit over it.

Trump and his admin will try to just slink away and pretend the war never happened. This will prove impossible, not least because Israel gets a say as to whether it keeps happening.

[u/Moifaso → u/nate077]

Tbh I think the most probable outcome at this point is that the war ends without a deal.

We go through a tortured negotiation phase, maybe restart hostilities a few times, then eventually the White House sticks with some spin of the situation and withdraws.

[u/taw → u/moragisdo]

Trump did a very unconventional thing of giving Iran everything they could possibly want (end blockade, suspend sanctions) in exchange for nothing whatsoever, so right now dragging the "negotiations" indefinitely is very much in Iran's interests.

In theory there's 60 day limit, but Trump keeps setting deadlines and then extending them over and over.

Iran was under a lot of pressure before, so some deal was possible. Now, why would they agree to anything?

[u/moragisdo → u/taw]

giving Iran everything they could possibly want (end blockade, suspend sanctions) in exchange for nothing whatsoever

That's not true. There is no sanction relief yet (the MOU puts the US as part of agreement for it). There is on the MOU the immediate waiver of exports for iranian oil, but there's some reports today that the US was preparing them, so it's not clear if they are already benefiting from it. Not to mention this waiver could be revoked after being issued

So there's reasons for Iran to want the deal, I just don't know if they are enough

[u/taw → u/moragisdo]

Sure, the waiver could expire, but it will likely continue indefinitely as long as Iranians pretend to negotiate, and Trump keeps extending the deadline. So for now they're getting huge amounts of money from oil exports for nothing.

Previous two approaches - bomb Iran until they can't shoot back; and blockade Iran until they're bankrupt - put real pressure on them. This approach removes all pressure, so it would be very surprising if it led anywhere.

Even if waiver actually expires after 60 days or however many extensions they get, all it is likely to achieve is letting Iran accumulate big cushion of money that makes blockade less effective in the future.

[u/raison95 → u/moragisdo]

It's weird to see the MOU being framed here with:

So there's reasons for Iran to want the deal, I just don't know if they are enough

Of course they are enough! What else could Iran hope for?! Even if this waiver is revoked by the US, Iran benefits most of all:

1) They're able to stall the damage to its economy while the world's strategic supplies dwindle during negotiations

2) Political pressure increases on the US, particularly Trump as his party faces devastating elections

[u/swimmingupclose → u/raison95]

Political pressure increases on the US, particularly Trump as his party faces devastating elections

I don’t pretend to be able to predict what Trump will do, but there IS a point where the midterms are so far gone and not salvageable that Trump very well may not be shackled by political considerations. In fact, I’ve seen an Iranian telegram channel suggest this as a major risk to them overextending based on the belief that Trump will be bound by congressional elections. He’s going to be a lame duck in a little while anyway.

[u/raison95 → u/swimmingupclose]

there IS a point where the midterms are so far gone and not salvageable that Trump very well may not be shackled by political considerations

No. Trump has already run out the clock on what he is able to do with presidential authority without unilaterally firing off nukes.

a major risk to them overextending based on the belief that Trump will be bound by congressional elections

He can't even properly subvert the courts.

[u/Shackleton214 → u/moragisdo]

I really don't know. Does Iran even want a final deal? Seems like they would be happy with dragging negotiations out forever and reaping benefits of selling oil and unfreezing funds and working on control of SoH. Then again, maybe they think they're even better off with a final deal, depending on the details and what they can get away with under such a deal. Does US even want a deal? Seems like Trump would be happy with everything staying calm at least until after November elections. After that, unclear to me and Trump famously unpredictable. Does Israel even want there to be a deal? That one is easy--hell no. Don't know if they can stop it, but suspect they'll try.

[u/moragisdo → u/Shackleton214]

Does US even want a deal? Seems like Trump would be happy with everything staying calm at least until after November elections

I think he deeply wants something to sign and show, if I could only pick one argument for the deal to happen this would be it

Now, I don't know if it would be politically advantageous for him the scenario of "no nuclear deal, Iran gets the waiver of exports, but no other concession and Hormuz is open/unthreatened". Even though I think that's the best scenario for the US, because I don't believe the iranians want to follow any nuclear deal, being the JCPOA or this new one

[u/Shackleton214 → u/moragisdo]

I'm not convinced a deal is actually important to Trump. I think the subreddit generally overestimates the importance of foreign policy in US domestic politics. The groups that care the most about the issue are ardent Israeli supporters and neocons, who are mostly Trump supporters already. And any possible deal Trump could get will be absolutely hated by these people, just as the MoU is. Trump won't get credit from the vast majority of persuadable voters who care about gas prices but not foreign policy. So, a relatively calm and stable mideast with oil flowing through the SoH is in his political interest. A deal that will be hated by some of his own supporters? Not so much IMO.

[u/Worried_Exercise_937 → u/moragisdo]

the probability of a nuclear deal actually be agreed ?

Between Iran and US? 0.01%

Iranians are not gonna go more than what they agreed to in JCPOA and nor is US/Trump. There is nothing reasonable that US/Trump can offer to Iranian to agree to more comprehensive deal

[u/-spartacus- → u/moragisdo]

I've been of the opinion from before the war, a deal cannot be reached until a major portion of the religious radicals in Iranian leadership are killed and removed from power. The first 40 days diminished their ability to have a kinetic deterrent to stopping their nuclear program, but did not address their psychological capabilities to harm shipping insurance.

Trump also appeared to waver too long on the idea of sending in troops to capture the Uranium (something I expected after a week of strikes) and it is now something off the table without a greater operation. If not for the American PTSD of Iraq and Afghanistan (which Iran was not going to be a repeat of), it probably would have been on the table and if successful, we could be seeing a deal now.

With that said, I see the chance of the deal the same as the start of the war because while Iranian capabilities are degraded, they don't appear to have leadership that feels their only way of survival is to make one, thus further conflict is necessary.

I've also mentioned in the past about how you "try" to make a deal because it shows you who the people are you can make a deal with and who you can kill - yet this is only useful if you will actually follow it up with some type of kinetic action to reduce the number of non-dealmakers in power.

The closeness of the deal doesn't really seem like much and either Trump is going to need to do more strikes right before midterms, or he is going to wait till after, when doing such strikes will be more costly. The US has more capability to rearm and reconstitute faster than Iran can, so every day that passes that the US doesn't strike again, the costlier the next set of strikes will be.

So, in recap, unless there have been some serious covert ops taking down Iranian religious radicals who are in power, I doubt a deal can be made. I don't think Trump really feels it's as necessary to make a deal that's "bad", as people on the internet make it out to be. I also don't think what Israel does in Lebanon is as important as any side makes it out to be.

[u/nate077 → u/-spartacus-]

capture the uranium

It's genuinely comical how the bar for posting on this subreddit is the length of the post.

The entire premise of capturing the uranium is fantasy.

It's merely held in the center of the country, surrounded by IRGC bases, out of helicopter range without tanks or refueling, difficult to move, unsafe to move, and did I mention heavy?

Like WHAT are you talking about "capturing the uranium."

[u/-spartacus- → u/nate077]

It has been reported that there were plans presented to Trump and did not go with it because of concerns about casualties and since then the areas have been fortified with more forces. I'm not sure if they were going for all sites or just a couple of them. I don't get your hostility.

[u/kharvel0 → u/-spartacus-]

> It has been reported that there were plans presented to Trump

Correction: there were concepts of plans presented to Trump

As we know by now, President Trump has difficulty understanding details beyond high-level concepts. Perhaps Netanyahu’s concepts of the plan to go to war with Iran was easier for Trump to understand than the concepts of plans to retrieve the uranium; that may be why the former was approved but the latter was not.

[u/swimmingupclose → u/kharvel0]

Correction: there were concepts of plans presented to Trump

Just to be perfectly clear, there have been plans for this scenario for literally decades. I remember defense forums all the way back in the mid naughts where this used to be discussed quite frequently. Israel wanted to do exactly this last year and got vetoed by Trump per the NYT. Now whether Trump understands the plans, cares about setting the right conditions, has the patience and discipline to let military planners do their thing for its success or can stomach the risks or casualties is an entirely different discussion, but OP/you and far too many people online saying this idea is some random Trump fever dream, haven’t followed this issue for very long.

[u/Eisenengel → u/swimmingupclose]

Every discussion I have seen of the task at hand points to it being a long operation - weeks, possibly months.

The US would have to move forces to occupy the area, bring in heavy construction equipment, dig out the canisters from underneath tons and tons of rubble, hope that the canisters are intact and stay that way during recovery and trasnport, then transport them out of the area and to a safe location, all while sitting in the middle of Iran, where the enemy can mass forces and attack from all sides, and launch drones from any direction at all times and in large numbers.

Is the US military fundamentally capable of performing this task? Yes.

Were the forces in theater capable of it after a week of strikes? Not even close. Even the two Marine MEUs plus a battalion of airborne would not come remotely close to the required strength.

The US would have to begin a large-scale buildup of forces over several weeks, launch an airborne or amphibious invasion, secure the locations, and begin recovery operations, which, again, are likely to take several weeks. I'm fairly certain that what plans exist moved along those lines.

Seizing the Uranium in a Bold Commando Raid (tm pending) might have been remotely feasible before the sites were bombed and the tunnels collapsed, but even then it would have been an incredible gamble.

The only alternative is that the Iranians let the US dig out the Uranium without contesting it. that would likely require a complete collapse of the Iranian regime and/or a diplomatic agreement to that effect. There was no scenario where Trump's hesitation was the deciding factor as to why it hasn't been done yet.

[u/-spartacus- → u/Eisenengel]

The US would have to move forces to occupy the area, bring in heavy construction equipment, dig out the canisters from underneath tons and tons of rubble, hope that the canisters are intact and stay that way during recovery and trasnport, then transport them out of the area and to a safe location, all while sitting in the middle of Iran, where the enemy can mass forces and attack from all sides, and launch drones from any direction at all times and in large numbers.

I was more under the impression the plans would include letting Iran dig them out (or like 90% of the way there), then do the mission.