Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Miscellanea: The War in Iran

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#141

Post by pas »

surgical_fire wrote: post #113
pas wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it didn't really. Iran is poorer than it was before, even more of a problem than it was before. NK has two very special advantages (Seoul is within artillery range, and it is literally in the backyard of one or two relevant superpowers over the decades) whereas Tehran's "force projection" is mostly through proxies and affecting global commodity trade. Without NK's hard deterrence (and without being next door to i…

> Iran is poorer than it was before, even more of a problem than it was before. Iran seemingly is coming out of this mess stronger than it was before. The regime remains unchanged, and is likely less willing to make concessions now. Hell, even sanctions on it being able to sell oil have been lifted, which is a boon to their economy. They are in effective control of the strait, and justified in exercising it now. Yeah…

Obviously the current US Mobministration is almost impervious to shame, but of course they still have their own egoistic expectations to grapple with.

They are not afraid to spend money (and blood) on a problem, even if it turns out to be bigger than expected. How much? We'll see.

The neighbors are motivated to not live next to one more nuclear state. We'll see how much.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#142

Post by AnimalMuppet »

pas wrote: post #110
underdeserver wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm basing that opinion on the FAQ that states that most politics stories are irrelevant. But sure, I'm one vote among tens of thousands, and it's up to the mods to decide. It's most of my comment history recently because I have family and friends in the region and I'm admittedly triggered by the callousness, heartlessness and sanctimony I see in these comments. It's not healthy, I know. People are trying to preach g…

The HN protocol to deal with this is downvote silently. Complaining about why and what is on HN is also in the FAQ as a no no. If there was any serious preparation for a many months long campaign then why Kharg island is not occupied already?

The HN protocol is also to flag articles that are off-topic.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#144

Post by spwa4 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #140
solatic wrote: post #128

Author seems to not care about the prospect of the Iranian regime developing nuclear weapons, putting those weapons into the hands of its terrorist proxies, and sitting back while those proxies turn Western Europe and Palestine into radioactive wastelands (yes, Palestine, because it is not possible to restrict the fallout to just Tel Aviv, and the regime has shown itself to be far more anti-Israel than pro-Palestinia…

Donald Trump obviously doesn't care either, because every action he has taken during his two terms has increased the risk of Iran developing nuclear weapons. JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing, which is what Trump traded it for. If Trump was serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, he would have made taking Isfahan a top priority of the initial strikes.

That doesn't change in the least the argument the OP made. The UN's IAEA has declared that Iran deceived them, didn't follow the agreements, and even accused them of violating the agreements with the intent to build a bomb.

As to Trump's motivations, they don't change this calculus. Iran intended to nuke their neighbors, and Israel, not just before Trump came to power but literally before the first Bush became president. And the full situation is even worse: right after the mullah's came to power in a leftist revolution in 1979, they begged for US and Israel's help to stop Saddam Hussein from nuking them. They got that help ... and then figured that nukes are a great idea.

Here's what the mullahs are most afraid of btw. The biggest threat to their power, the biggest problem for their central-London villas:

https://x.com/NarimanGharib/status/2036761330359615897

This local opposition to them has systematically worsened over time, btw. So I wouldn't put it past the mullahs to nuke Iran itself, eventually. It also means that Iran's islamic regime is threatening everyone, for the simple reason that if they make a single concession loosening their grip on Iran, they'll be lynched, one by one, in the streets, by people they went to school with. That is how much Iran's regime is "winning".

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#145

Post by Starman_Jones »

aa-jv wrote: post #122
defrost wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia? France? The UK? India? Pakistan? Israel? China? There are many countries that have used nuclear weapons. If you're talking about the USofA they didn't try that hard at preventing Iran from enriching - they tore up a perfectly good and well functioning monitoring agreement at the start of Trump's first term.

The USA is the only nation so far which has committed mass murder with nuclear weapons. It seems to want to reserve itself that exclusive right.

As an American, i can say that, yes, I want us to be the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons. I don't think that should be a controversial opinion.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#147

Post by spwa4 »

Starman_Jones wrote: post #146
spwa4 wrote: post #143

[flagged]

Regarding the first half of your comment, I believe that the article addresses both your recommendations.

Really? The only thing that comes close is the sentence about Iran's regime collapsing "on cue", and let's be honest, the only attention that factor gets is a sound-byte dismissal with barely a reference to what happened in January.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#148

Post by bryanlarsen »

spwa4 wrote: post #144
bryanlarsen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump obviously doesn't care either, because every action he has taken during his two terms has increased the risk of Iran developing nuclear weapons. JCPOA was highly flawed, but it was a lot better than nothing, which is what Trump traded it for. If Trump was serious about stopping Iran's nuclear program, he would have made taking Isfahan a top priority of the initial strikes.

That doesn't change in the least the argument the OP made. The UN's IAEA has declared that Iran deceived them, didn't follow the agreements, and even accused them of violating the agreements with the intent to build a bomb. As to Trump's motivations, they don't change this calculus. Iran intended to nuke their neighbors, and Israel, not just before Trump came to power but literally before the first Bush became presid…

You, me, solatic and acoup probably all agree that a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands is a huge danger.

But it's only Donald Trump that has used that as an excuse to make that danger greater.

And acoup has a great counter-point to your tweet in the article.

The Soviet Union dealt with massive internal protest quite successfully for pretty much every single one of its 70 years of existence. The Soviet Union only fell when insiders took it down.

Iran appears to be in absolutely no danger of that happening.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#149

Post by beej71 »

duskdozer wrote: post #86
ardit33 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one in the US asked for this. Such a dumb move from the current administration.

The traders with a five-minute preview of trump's tweets beg to differ

I've often wondered why the stock market oscillates while Trump is in office. If I just knew a little in advance...
Post reply on HN