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

Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#21

Post by konradb »

bsaul wrote: post #11
sveme wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand your question. You are asking what Iran wanted from the EU and US and what they wanted from Iran? EU&US: Don't develop nuclear weapons. Iran: Stop the sanctions, let us sell our oil. Is that what you were asking for?

I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision. Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok. I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree". But…

Presumably it's an issue of national sovereignty - it is their country, and they are broadly able to do any activities on their land as they see fit, just as the EU and US have seen fit to develop nuclear weapons.

Presumably the alternative is to threaten to invade or impose economic sanctions, but that doesn't seem to me like the beginning of a productive conversation. If anything it might increase the urgency of getting weapons, of any type, to be taken seriously.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#22

Post by bsaul »

Expeditus419 wrote: post #10
bsaul wrote: post #5

Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ? I mean, why did EU and US insist so much on wanting a deal ? It seemed to be that one side has all the leverage in the negociation and the other has none. We could have simply waited for the iranian regime to get so weakened that they'd simply surrender and accept every measure. So I don't u…

A prolonged weakened economy doesn't necessarily prevent a country from developing a nuclear weapons program. Take a look at North Korea.

North korea is what scares me, because the path seems exactly similar to iran's one. Half-baked embargo , fear of sending soldier or bombing nuclear infrstructures, followed by half-backed agreements, leading to a country lead by insane dictator with nuclear bombs.

Only north korea had china to protect it, whereas iran has (to my knowledge) nobody wanting to risk anything for it.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#23

Post by briandear »

Tomte wrote: post #13
thescrewdriver wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what else would be on that list?

Nationwide Universal Healthcare.

There is no universal healthcare in the U.S. There's a tax penalty if you don't buy insurance. There are subsidies for buying insurance, but no fundamental change unless higher premiums and higher taxes are considered fundamental change.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#24

Post by knowaveragejoe »

adventured wrote: post #14
Tomte wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationwide Universal Healthcare.

The US does not have universal healthcare. Further, Obama wasn't responsible for the ACA. edit: if the US had universal healthcare, the US wouldn't have 30+ million people without health coverage today.

Nevermind that it's a large step in that direction, I'm pretty sure it was his pen that signed it into law.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#26

Post by briandear »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #3

If you had told me that would be today's headline at any point over the past decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If this works out, the President has another thing to add to his list of "things no President before me achieved".

Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#27

Post by lentil_soup »

bsaul wrote: post #5

Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ? I mean, why did EU and US insist so much on wanting a deal ? It seemed to be that one side has all the leverage in the negociation and the other has none. We could have simply waited for the iranian regime to get so weakened that they'd simply surrender and accept every measure. So I don't u…

So you punish an entire group of people by weakening their economy until their government does what an external entity wants them to do?. Seems quite a violent approach.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#28

Post by twoodfin »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #3

If you had told me that would be today's headline at any point over the past decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If this works out, the President has another thing to add to his list of "things no President before me achieved".

Well, Bill Clinton got a nuclear deal with North Korea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#30

Post by rayiner »

briandear wrote: post #26
DiabloD3 wrote: post #3

If you had told me that would be today's headline at any point over the past decade, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If this works out, the President has another thing to add to his list of "things no President before me achieved".

Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He…

Revolution is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy. See, e.g., the Arab Spring, the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Had those protestors been successful, there is a significant possibility would have been co-opted by elements that executed, tortured, and imprisoned a lot more people. See, e.g., the French Revolution.

Iran, in contrast, is well on its way to having a functional democracy. The power of the ayatollah wanes every year, and every new generation of young Iranians is more liberal than before. The best thing the U.S. can do is be friendly and wait for that to play out. Because if there is any hope for another democracy in the Middle East, it's in a place where people are already accustomed to the benefits of having a functioning government with significant and growing public participation.

Post reply on HN