Live data from Hacker News

Miscellanea: The War in Iran

acoup.blog

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between buying a solar panel once and having it generate energy for the next 30 years vs. buying a barrel of oil now and consuming it by next week. It's the same difference as buying a house now and owning it until it collapses vs. renting a house and being at the mercy of your landlord, or buying a piece of shrink-wrapped software and using it for the next 18 years vs. renting a SaaS subsc…

> buying a piece of shrink-wrapped software and using it for the next 18 years I'm wondering how that works. I have written software that was still being used, 25 years later, but it was pretty much a "Ship of Theseus," by then.

Old hardware or emulation of old operating systems on new hardware.

Quite common on old industrial machinery and other capital equipment like lab equipment. San Francisco BART for example has to scrounge eBay for old motherboards that still allow DMA to parallel ports via southbridge because it’s too expensive to validate a new design for controllers.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That functionally cedes Emirati and Saudi sovereignty to Iran. Today it's $2mm. Tomorrow it's anything else Tehran requires. the point is besides full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do, there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra, they just don't have way to deal with the problem.

> full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot. > there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra Barring invasion: mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines. Israel locking up the Ca…

> Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot.

they couldn't win this against much closer, smaller and weaker Yemen. They just don't have functional military.

> mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines.

I don't believe they will do this because they love oil money too much, unlike Iranian regime, which is idiologically/religiously driven, and endured for many years of various attacks and sanctions.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps they are not as intelligent as you think they are.

I believe that highly intelligent people can do incredibly stupid things -- I've seen it first hand. The correlating factor for those two acquaintances is that they are both devout Christians . I find that to be beyond ironic but also makes sense, as that devotion parallels the appeal to authority and many churches are run by leaders who believe in Supply Side Jesus. I don't mean this to be inflammatory as it's only…

You’re not the first to make such observations. To quote Barry Goldwater (Republican party nominee for US President in 1964):

> Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#514

The amazing part to me is just the perceived invincibility this small circle within the US administration has. You can find dozens of articles with a search limited to Feb 1~Feb 27, plenty of analysis warning of the risks that have now become reality, everything - the strait, no revolution, further radicalization, critically low US stockpiles, abandoning other US partners, gulf destabilization, etc. In the fantasy im…

> plenty of analysis warning of the risks that have now become reality

You can also easily find analysis warning of the opposite: the risks of not invading Iran. See Nazi Germany and WW2 for an example what happens when you fail to contain a belligerently rogue country.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Seriously did you buy this? Uh yes, water shortages and inflation have a habit of pissing people off.

The CIA, as its tradition demands, never meddles when the conditions are ripe to promote American interests. They just let nature take its course from afar.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to believe this, but very recent history has shown (in the US at least) that we are moving backwards and trying to resist renewable energy.

Economics will always win in the end. At the rate that costs are dropping for solar, it should just be a matter of time. Biggest concerns are usually placement and durability to bad weather.

The remaining oil companies will profit tremendously from the high oil prices. I am sure they will have no problem allocating some of those extra profits to sabotage attempts to consider any alternative energy sources.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that highly intelligent people can do incredibly stupid things -- I've seen it first hand. The correlating factor for those two acquaintances is that they are both devout Christians . I find that to be beyond ironic but also makes sense, as that devotion parallels the appeal to authority and many churches are run by leaders who believe in Supply Side Jesus. I don't mean this to be inflammatory as it's only…

You’re not the first to make such observations. To quote Barry Goldwater (Republican party nominee for US President in 1964): > Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name o…

Was he describing America or Iran? Hard to figure out as we seemed to be in War due to similar people in control of another (not)important country :)

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#518
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Give away the enriched uranium, become secular. TFA explains why this is impossible for Iran.

Once again - it is impossible for a very select few. There are a lot of generals that could stage a coup. Or colonels. They just summary execute those above them and say new rules bitches.

TFA argues that the Iranian regime works "bottom up", and there's no "select few" group of leaders that can be removed or changed that would topple the regime or make it change course. TFA argues that the US fundamentally misread the situation (it also argues that Israel didn't misread it but also doesn't care what happens in Iran, they just want to destabilize it for short-term gains, mainly benefiting Netanyahu; but that this war is also a mistake for Israel longer term).

> The Islamic Republic of Iran is not a personalist regime where the death of a single leader or even a group of leaders is likely to cause collapse: it is an institutional regime where the core centers of power (like the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps or IRGC) are ‘bought in’ from the bottom to the top because the regime allows them access to disproportionate resources and power. Consequently if you blow up the leader, they will simply pick another one [...]

> But power in the Iranian regime isn’t wielded by the Supreme Leader alone either: the guardian council has power, the council of experts that select the Supreme Leader have power, the IRGC has power, the regular military has some power (but less than the IRGC), the elected government has some power (but less than the IRGC or the guardian council) and on and on.

And this bunch of people cannot easily change course, TFA convincingly argues, because:

> And so that is the trap. While the United States can exchange tit-for-tat strikes with Iran without triggering an escalation spiral, once you try to collapse the regime, the members of the regime (who are making the decisions, not, alas, the Iranian people) have no reason to back down and indeed must try to reestablish deterrence. These are men who are almost certainly dead or poor-in-exile if the regime collapses. Moreover the entire raison d’être of this regime is resistance to Israel and the United States: passively accepting a massive decapitation attack and not responding would fatally undermine the regime’s legitimacy with its own supporters, leading right back to the ‘dead-or-poor-and-exiled’ problem.

So they cannot yield power and they cannot stand down because their whole legitimacy (of sorts) rests on being belligerent towards Israel and the US. If they flinch, the worst case scenario for them is to lose power and get killed.

TFA calls this a "trap" for both the US and Iran. It's a situation they are locked in now, both sides forced to escalate because backing down spells political doom for whoever does it, but escalating is still bad for both of them.

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No actually it was feb 28th https://x.com/i/status/2027651077865157033

Did you even listen to the link you just posted? He makes very clear in his instructions to the Iranian people that they should stay sheltered as bombs will be dropping.

Do go on - what were his instructions on what they ought to do after the bombing stopped?

Re: Miscellanea: The War in Iran

#520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> full scale invasion which Saudi and UAE won't do Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot. > there is no reliable way to remove threat of Iran striking oil infra Barring invasion: mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines. Israel locking up the Ca…

> Don't need a full-scale invasion. Just a land grab on the coasts. They can't do it alone. But they can provide troops (and mercenaries) as well as staying power where the U.S. cannot. they couldn't win this against much closer, smaller and weaker Yemen. They just don't have functional military. > mutualize the damage. Pot Iranian tankers. Seed their ports with mines. I don't believe they will do this because they l…

> couldn't win this against much closer, smaller and weaker Yemen. They just don't have functional military

KSA went it alone in Yemen. And from that–as well as various proxy wars in Africa–both it and the UAE have learned.

> don't believe they will do this because they love oil money too much

Loving oil money means wanting to export your oil. That said, I think the monarchies are more politically vulnerable. So it's harder for them to commit to this path. (It would also involve pissing off Trump.) But that doesn't mean it's strategically off the table, particularly for Saudi Arabia, which is less dependent on the Strait than the UAE.

Post reply on HN