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

141–150 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#141

Post by Jgrubb »

0xFFC wrote: post #119
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.

Iranian here , and I am commenting from Iran.Iranian people maybe most pro usa people in middle east. and about government, they just need keep people busy because of they systematic corruption. Thats all. 10 years before , Ali Khamneai said following : "anyone who says we should communicate with USA is or idiot or our enemy/traitor". and guess what ? today , FM Zarif have record in our history for maximum time negot…

> They just love money.And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.That's all.

American here, commenting from America. We have almost the exact same situation here with our political "leadership".

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#142

Post by yoavm »

lentil_soup wrote: post #127
yoavm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every country has a right to forbid business relations with another country due to its government's policy. As an Israeli I think the boycott on Israel is a legitimate way to try influencing our policies even though the boycott hurts me as a citizen that oppose the occupation. You pay a price for having a dumb government. Just to clarify: I'm all for the deal with Iran, hoping for a better future for the Iranians.

True, you're right. But I guess if you have a way of achieving the same goals without doing that it should be favored?

Of course, though I think economical sanctions are already much better than starting another preventive war.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#143

Post by api »

0xFFC wrote: post #119
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.

Iranian here , and I am commenting from Iran.Iranian people maybe most pro usa people in middle east. and about government, they just need keep people busy because of they systematic corruption. Thats all. 10 years before , Ali Khamneai said following : "anyone who says we should communicate with USA is or idiot or our enemy/traitor". and guess what ? today , FM Zarif have record in our history for maximum time negot…

American here. Sounds like they are just like our leaders. :)

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#144

Post by FeepingCreature »

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…

Speaking as somebody with no interest in the region, if I was an Iranian I'd want a nuclear weapon. Nobody invades a nuclear power. Nuclear powers get propped up instead of sabotaged.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#145

Post by discardorama »

rayiner wrote: post #110
user_0001 wrote: post #105

>(besides Israel, obviously) Out of interest, why obviously? The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange (to most outside of the US who I have spoken to). Israel has it's religious fundamentalists (just like the rest of the region). Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other…

> Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), Israel is our ally not because they're the "good guys" but because they share, and can help spread, our basic values about democratic government. You can have militarily aggressive democracies (e.g.…

> Israel is our ally ...

... because a large number of conservative Americans believe that Jesus is not going to come unless Israel is ruled by a Jewish king (or something like that; see here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?p... )

... because a large number of donors to the Republican (and Democratic) parties are wealthy Jewish folk. And we know that in the US, money talks when it comes to policy.

As a result, most politicians feel the need to pander to the hardliners in Israel: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-jewish...

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#146

Post by rayiner »

Udik wrote: post #134
rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is militarily aggressive, disregards civilian life, commits war crimes, disregards international law and opinion (with impunity due to the US and their veto - and forcing other countries to at least abstain from votes), Israel is our ally not because they're the "good guys" but because they share, and can help spread, our basic values about democratic government. You can have militarily aggressive democracies (e.g.…

Hm. So you're saying that a state disregarding tens of UN resolutions, that is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that periodically massacres thousands of civilians, that faces mounting accusations of being an apartheid regime, that keeps creating civilian settlements in an occupied territory, that has secret nuclear weapons, that incarcerates people without accusation or trial - this state "shares and can…

Yes, Democracy has nothing to do with how a country uses its military power to further its interests, or how a country cooperates or does not within an international framework. Arguably, a country that ignores resolutions of unelected bodies like the UN in response to the popular will is more democratic, not less.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#147

Post by ohitsdom »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #109

Not sure how this benefits the US at all. Iran reaps billions in frozen assets and the end to their oil embargo. Plus, the US caved on giving the Iranians a 14 day windows to prep for UN inspections which is more than enough time to cover up their non-compliance. This is a huge win for the Iranians, not sure what we get out of it besides a shaky ally in the region who's never backed us up and essentially undermined e…

As others have said, the US will get support in fighting ISIS. Also this will go a long way in building up relations with Iran in the hopes of one day counting them as a reliable ally.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#148

Post by bruceb »

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.

Why would it have sailed through with her in office?

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#149

Post by Molaxx »

1stop wrote: post #83
threeseed wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So maybe we should be thinking about disarming Israel then. It seems to fit all of your criteria.

Why down vote? It fits the EXACT criteria outlined by the GP? I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? (Please don't resort to some quote about Iran hating Israel, as Israel have said equally extreme things as well).

show me a high ranking Israeli that says that the entire Iranian nation should be wiped off the map. I can find many quotes of people like shimon Peres that call the Iranian people friends and that Israel wishes no hostility with Iran. on the other side the highest ranking Iranian officials repeatedly call for the total annihilation of the 'Zionist entity' which is Israel. Your claim that the situation symmetric in this respect is just false. further more there is a huge geographical difference between Israel and iran. the entire area of Israel can be conquered in a day. its tiny compared to Iran, checkout the maps. Combine that with the extremely aggressive rhetorics of israels neighbours that don't even consider Israel as enemy but as an evil entity that should be "wiped off the map" and you might understand Israel's need for a strategic weapon. on the contrary Iran doesn't have any viable enemies that seek to literally destroy it. The only people who need a nuclear weapon in Iran are the leaders of the theocratic regime inorder to cement their rule. this is more similiar to the nuclear ambitions of north Korean leaders.

in short, the situation of the two countries is far from being symmetric due to huge geopolitical differences.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#150

Post by 3pt14159 »

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…

I think you need to read more of the leaked cables and dig deeper into foreign policy journals.

The US policy in the middle east is one of destabilization. ISIS is not a threat to American interests, it's a tool created by America to keep the region destabilized. Once energy is either no longer the limit to economic growth, or no longer economically efficient from oil, then the Americans / NATO and the Chinese can allow a more stable middle east. But the threat of foreign control over a very important and wildly swinging energy input, as well as a strategic launching point to many threats, leads to US / NATO foreign policy in the region that leans towards destabilization and fracturing interests in the region.

Post reply on HN