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

91–100 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#91

Post by vasilipupkin »

meragrin wrote: post #80
vasilipupkin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are focused on the mechanics of how it got passed. But it was clearly his major priority and wouldn't have happened without him being in office. So, I apologize, but your statement seems at best completely inaccurate to me

So Hillary couldn't or wouldn't have done the same thing? Personally, I think it would have sailed through much more easily had she been in office.

Hmmmm, Hillary tried to do the same thing a long time ago and failed. But more importantly, even if you are correct, that is totally irrelevant to whether or not Obama had anything to do with it.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#92

Post by afiedler »

maxerickson wrote: post #37
mavdi wrote: post #33

Sceptical Iranian here. There are groups that profit from an ongoing tension and conflict on both sides. This time around it seems they have lost the hand, but we would be a fool to think that this agreement settles things for good. This has always been and will always be a fluid situation. I think the work has just begun now, let's hope the sane people inc charge on both sides will keep things positive. Otherwise it…

Re your second paragraph, keep in mind that the US Congress gets to vote on it.

It's extremely likely to pass. Since this isn't technically a "treaty", Congress can only pass a bill to disapprove of it [1]. Obama can then veto the disapproval, and there are enough Democrats to override the veto.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/congress-...

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#93

Post by vasilipupkin »

jajool wrote: post #78
roymurdock wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm interested to hear what the general young Iranian sentiment is towards the Iranian government, the US government, and the agreement. I worked in Afghanistan at a telecom provider last summer. A lot of my coworkers were young 20-somethings whose parents had fled Afghanistan when the Taliban came to power from 1996-2001. The majority of them had been raised in Iran; the minority, in Pakistan. The ones who had been…

majority of young people are happy! to tell you the troth sanctions were a real pain for us, imagine every time i use internet and i forget to connect VPN i get the "Unavailable in your country message" while visiting Unity or Google Code websites. but on the other hand there are some who are not that happy they think with this agreement we have lost decades of effort toward peacefull nuclear energy. there is one thi…

I am doubting the last sentence. Iran clearly has a nuclear weapons program and clearly that program has a constituency within Iran, although I am sure lots of Iranians don't want it or need it, but that's not the same as saying that nobody wants it

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#94

Post by evgen »

mason240 wrote: post #88
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".

I don't know if capitulating to theocratic regime in their attempts at nuclear proliferation (which will likely set off a regional nuclear arms race) is something to be proud of.

Well, since the US didn't capitulate and the regional nuclear arms race was already in progress I guess it goes back into the things to be proud of column; although, really the only ones who are upset with this deal are hardliners in Iran and Israel and the fact that they are upset is a stronger indicator that this is "a good thing"(tm) than any punditry we will hear over the next few weeks.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#95

Post by rayiner »

bsaul wrote: post #64
skylan_q wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

It's worth reading up on the structure of the government of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran. The Iranian President or Ayatollah is often portrayed as a dictator, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that. Iran has a functional civil service, with the office of the President, a parliament, and independent judiciary. Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. Though the theocracy pulls a lot of strings, the civil government has significant autonomy in areas such as economic policy and the routine administration of justice. And theocracy itself at least as elements that could evolve into a more liberal system. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are themselves elected by public vote.

Most importantly, Iranians are used to and expect those hallmarks of modern civilization. That makes them very different from the people who live in the other Middle Eastern theocracies, who, prior to establishment of the monarchies, did not have nations with functioning national governments and civil services. Those attitudes towards government are what enable friendships between countries, moreso than relatively transitory conflicts. For example, the U.K., France, and Germany live relatively harmoniously within the structure of the EU, even though as recently as 70 years ago, they killed millions of each others' people.

I don't want to whitewash Iran (it's still a place that executes homosexuals, after all). But I think it's important to look at the example of England, the originator of modern western democracy. It evolved very methodically from a divine-right monarchy into a liberal democracy. It did so because it had the political structures in place to enable that transition. Long before the monarch was relegated to ceremonial status, the civil government was actually running the show. Countries like Saudi Arabia do not have that. Their governments are intimately tied up in their monarchies. Iran, on the other hand, does have the structures in place to enable a successful transition into democracy.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#96

Post by evgen »

gadders wrote: post #35
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".

"Letting Iran develop a nuclear bomb." Not sure I'd want that as my epitaph.

Yeah, as compared to the string if presidents before him to did both jack and shit to stop Iran's nuclear development efforts.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#97

Post by secfirstmd »

geff82 wrote: post #71
bsaul wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.

Had to laugh at the last sentence.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#98

Post by cpursley »

skylan_q wrote: post #47
acjohnson55 wrote: post #38

I think the future of the Middle East is a tense balance between Saudi and Iranian poles, with both countries being normalized in the international community. The USA can't bring either country to heel, but it can hopefully prevent the stalemate from being nuclear along Sunni-Shia lines. But what's also changed is that the US needs a normalized partner in Iran to fully isolate ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other fa…

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

Yeah, I agree. Also, the US has much more in common with Russia than China. I don't understand painting either of these countries as "the enemy".

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#99

Post by dsfyu404ed »

geff82 wrote: post #71
bsaul wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.

They even drive a few old American cars and their air force flies a handful of F-14s

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#100

Post by tootie »

twoodfin wrote: post #28
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

That agreement put up seals and cameras on their existing reactor to prevent them from reprocessing without us knowing. When W Bush began laying his case to invade Iraq, NK saw that compliance with inspections wasn't a guarantee of safety so they broke the seals. Bush and the UN knew immediately and simply declined to act. Opting instead to pursue mythical WMDs in Iraq.
Post reply on HN