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

Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 678 posts

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#641

Post by autoexec »

ericmay wrote: post #615
autoexec wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran signed a treaty that let them have a nuclear program but with rules. Iran didn't follow the rules so they got in trouble. New president comes in and agrees to follow rules if it means they won't be in so much trouble anymore and works with a bunch of countries on a new agreement. That's pretty much just the standard treatment isn't it? The new agreement itself was kind of impressive in some ways. It's really lon…

If it's just standard treatment can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules? Why not just not have a treaty and they just follow the rules? I think you're jumping through some hoops here to justify the need for the JCPOA when at the end of the day Iran needs to simply acquiesce to the international com…

> can you name the other countries where they agreed to the rules, didn't follow them, and then wanted a specific treaty in order to keep them following the rules?

First, keep in mind that Iran is very different today from when they signed that treaty. It was signed before the Iranian Revolution. A lot happened between the signing and when Iran approached the international community. By comparison, North Korea violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty too, and sanctions were put them as well, but they never came back to the table to reach a new agreement with the rest of the world (although they do have some kind of deal with russia I think)

Iran also didn't even want to "just keep following the rules". They accepted extra rules because at that point other countries didn't trust them. We don't monitor other countries like we did with Iran under the JCPOA. Iran wasn't demanding that we give them a bunch of free stuff either. They wanted sanctions lifted, but not even all the sanctions Iran wanted lifted were agreed to.

Other countries don't get to just tell other countries what to do. All we can do is encourage them to do the things we want by making offers or punish them for not doing what we want through things like sanctions. I mean, technically we can also use the CIA to interfere in their government but we already did that in Iran and it hasn't worked out so well for anybody.

Iran had reached a pretty good agreement with the world on the future of their nuclear program. It wasn't perfect for anybody, it was a compromise after all, but Iran followed the new agreement. Then Trump threw it all away because he was convinced that he could make a "better deal" and that was when the US offered Iran weird things like "free nuclear fuel" as part of Trump's new deal. I guess Iran just felt that Trump's deal was garbage even with the random extras Trump tried to use to entice them to go along with it. Frankly, considering how often Trump cheats people, I wouldn't agree to a deal with him either.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#642

Post by ndiddy »

ericmay wrote: post #554
ndiddy wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not supportive of Israel having nuclear weapons, but Iran won't do something like this because the Israelis might nuke them. You've said elsewhere in this thread that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon and that a global oil crisis is worth preventing that from happening. You've referred to the Iranian government as a "deranged death cult". Here you're saying that even though Iran already has the capability of…

> they won't do it because they're rational actors who understand mutually assured destruction It's both. The Iranians are rational within their own cultural understanding of what rational actions are. It's not rational, for example, for them to build nuclear weapons, deprive their people of economic prosperity, kill thousands of protestors, fund militant groups spreading terrorism and murder throughout the region, y…

> It's not rational, for example, for them to build nuclear weapons, deprive their people of economic prosperity, kill thousands of protestors, fund militant groups spreading terrorism and murder throughout the region, yet they do it anyway.

Iran's behavior (not its rhetoric) is largely pragmatic in the sense of pursuing national and regime security. For example, its strategy of funding military groups allows it to project power across the Middle East relatively cheaply, and meant that for decades most Iran-US and Iran-Israel fighting happened outside Iran. Of course, after the October 7 attacks the network lost much of its deterrent value once Israel decided that escalation was worth the costs the militant groups could impose, and began direct attacks on Iran. Still, it worked well for the prolonged gray-area conflict it was designed for.

Similarly, if Iran got a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't achieve much beyond self-defense. Iran wouldn't be able to blackmail or coerce its neighbors for the same reason that North Korea isn't able to extract concessions from the West, or that Israel isn't able to push around its neighbors. Nuclear weapons are not useful tools of coercion. If they were, maybe Israel's status as a nuclear power would have dissuaded Iran from pursuing nuclear enrichment. Any state that used a nuclear weapon would have the whole world turn against it and risk nuclear retaliation. Both Iran and its neighbors know this, so any hypothetical nuclear threats would not seem credible.

This explains Iran's historical strategy of being a "threshold" nuclear state- possessing the expertise and capability to build a nuclear weapon without suffering the political consequences of actually building one. However, the US-Israeli attacks on Iran in 2025 and 2026 (including assassinating the head of state and his family) may lead the Iranian leadership to conclude that having a threshold capability is insufficient and that the country needs an actual nuclear deterrent to protect its sovereignty in the future.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#643

Post by toast0 »

Catloafdev wrote: post #107
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you make oil prices increase, US oil companies and their shareholders rake in more cash. But it's harmful for the average American because filling up the tank costs a lot more. Then that price hike spreads to everything else that relies on oil (which is pretty much everything) leading to inflation and rising interest rates (already starting to happen, the shielding you mention doesn't seem to be working, whi…

I wouldn't assume this administration gives a shit about inflation or rising interest rates or how the rest of the economy is doing. Do you have any reason to believe they do?

This administration keeps trying to intimidate the Fed into lowering interest rates, which makes me believe it holds that as important, and they keep claiming there isn't inflation regardless of reality. I don't think they really care about how the economy is doing, but they care about how the summary numbers look.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#644

Post by meowface »

bandofthehawk wrote: post #368
meowface wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not saying this is necessarily incorrect but is it empirically actually true. Have people compared lots of different articles.

Yes, it's been true for a long time. See the book "Manufacturing Consent" for example, but there's been lots of research since. There are numerous ways that the western media biases news to build support for the objectives of those in power.

It would be nice to see research rather than polemics by far-leftists. Especially when that book is itself written by someone supportive of genocidal dictatorships.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#645

Post by hn993302 »

kelipso wrote: post #557
saxonww wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you expect instead? I think the US supports the Saudis because they are the primary competitor to Iran in the middle east. But no one (?) in the middle east has great support for women, gays, or infidels. I think you're right that strategic / economic interests have outweighed cultural issues / human rights.

Strategic / economic interests have always outweighed cultural issues / human rights. The women, gays, infidel line is purely to get political support or deflect political criticism from a portion of the population.

I remember hearing from leftwing media how Kurdish fighters are feminists and LGBT-friendly. Look I have nothing for or against them, but lol.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#646

Post by hn993302 »

tonmoy wrote: post #177
somenameforme wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you even realize that one of the only reason anybody still supports this war is precisely because of comments like yours? By dividing people into teams, and antagonizing them, you result in people never willing to stomach giving an inch and doubling down on stupid. Obviously this war has been the US' latest great failure, and at the beckoning of a foreign power which makes it especially catastrophic. If people cou…

“Someone was wrong, now I need to pretend they weren’t so that their feelings don’t get hurt so that we can all pretend it didn’t happen”

Not even many MAGA supporters were in favor of war with Iran. Bots on Twitter, sure.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#647

Post by vjvjvjvjghv »

ericmay wrote: post #565
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are more motivated than ever and other countries will follow. North Korea shows that Trump will kiss the ass of countries that have nuclear weapons, no matter how bad they are. And he will kick around countries that don’t have them. If I were Iran, I would put every possible effort into obtaining nuclear weapons. Probably from Trump’s best friend Kim Jong Un.

> and other countries will follow You sound gleeful about the idea of nuclear proliferation. It's unfortunate that so many have stopped caring about the institutions and liberal world order we created. Oh well. If/once Iran gets one we'll give one to Saudi Arabia at least and make sure Israel's program is well supported. Then we can make sure Germany has them and Poland too if they want them. Korea and Japan will als…

I am not gleeful at all about nuclear proliferation. Quite the opposite. It looks to me like the world order that has kept the western hemisphere peaceful and prosperous over the last 70 years is falling apart. And if AI and robotics take off, it's possible our capitalist model will also fall apart.

Re: nuclear weapons. If the US gives up the role of protecting other friendly nations and NATO isn't viewed as reliable anymore, it makes sense to develop nuclear weapons. As a German I am starting to wonder if we should develop our own just in case Putin gets some ideas. And I am sure Japan and South Korea are having similar thoughts.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#648

Post by hn993302 »

ak_111 wrote: post #129

This war started as a regime change operation in Iran, one of the shakiest regimes in the world pre-war, but ironically the war might end up with most of the nations who supported the war (either vocally or quietly) "regime changed" (loosely defined), including Israel, US, some European countries and now possibly some Gulf nations, awhile the Iranian regime seem to have tightened its grip more than ever. Yet MAGA sup…

The goal wasn't regime change. They didn't even propose a replacement, unlike Venezuela where there was someone to step in. Trump admitted it was Israel's demand, plus there are signs of market manipulation.

Some Iranian-Americans are very pro-Shah, particularly the many kicked out during the revolution. They were celebrating the war like it'd bring back the Shah, but frustrated that the US govt and even Western media as a whole ignored the exiled royal family... because that's not the point of the war.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#649

Post by jonplackett »

spwa4 wrote: post #532
riffraff wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I 100% agree Iran wants nukes, but I don't think it's a given they want to "destroy the region". It is more likely they want to get the same level of safety countries with nukes get, e.g. North Korea's leadership is at no risen of getting a "democratizing" invasion. Then again, who knows what the next leader will do.

Iran's current government started killing people to maintain power HOURS after they got to power. They have continued killing, constantly, people in their power, for about 55 years now. Including in january, and they're still killing more of their people for the crime of protesting one by one. They torture them first, especially if they're female. The IRGC has constantly used every weapon they have, and by that I mea…

I think you need to just pause for a moment of reflection and look at the number of countries the USA has invaded vs the number Iran has invaded.

And then maybe look at the number of nuclear bombs used against other nations.

Re: Houthis 'take control' of key island in global shipping route

#650

Post by culi »

throwaway85825 wrote: post #497
autoexec wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that's true, it's insane that it worked. It should be obvious to not take orders from twitter. There's a chain of command for a reason and random people on social media are no part of it. Sounds like the opposition forces would have to be so stupid that any number of Looney Tunes style tricks would have worked. Maybe next they can send out a rabbit in a dress to make opposition fall in love with it.

This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of Yemeni society. Arab political structure is based on tribal loyalty. Leaders of tribes pledge allegiance to other tribes or coalitions of tribes. They're not part of the same command structure because such a thing does not exist. Usually instead of being defeated tribal loyalties change with the political winds and tribe leaders neogtioate with other leaders. Twitter is a…

While that may be true, most of the forces fighting the Houthis are Saudi hired mercenaries. Many of them are literally children from Sudan.
Post reply on HN