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

151–160 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#151

Post by selimthegrim »

3pt14159 wrote: post #150
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 al…

Er, can you substantiate this? Wouldn't they prefer pocket puppet dictators? It seems keeping the region off balance is a cold comfort.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#152

Post by fapjacks »

3pt14159 wrote: post #150
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 al…

This is the most correct interpretation. Keeping the region unstable is a matter of policy for the US government, for various reasons. Instability brings certain circumstances which benefit the US greatly at this time.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#153

Post by AnimalMuppet »

user_0001 wrote: post #111
simonh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. It's just that in Cuba the revolution was communist while in Iran it had a strongly religious dimension. Other than the Iranian's support of the Palestinian cause, there's really no particular reason for them to be a great enemy of the…

>For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. That should probably read "the great pariah in Latin America". Is there a country in the whole region the US hasn't overthrown, tried to overthrow, propped up a right wing dictator, funded death squads in the last 70 years? I am failing to think of one....

Costa Rica.

I'm not sure there are any others, though. Maybe Belize, though I'm not sure that counts as "Latin America".

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#154

Post by selimthegrim »

roymurdock wrote: post #69
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…

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…

What were the ones raised in Pakistan like (was there a contrast?)

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#155

Post by selimthegrim »

seivan wrote: post #52
skylan_q wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero! They would have, but they gave it to the Soviets instead.

Soviet sent 8,668,400 of their own to the grave for that. That should cover it, not that I am condoning the totalitarian communist regime. There weren't better alternatives back then. There are now.

And which would those be? Those watan-foroosh MeK?

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#156

Post by jballanc »

bsaul wrote: post #129
jballanc wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you ignorant? or being willingly obtuse? Between the US and Iran, one of these countries supported a successful overthrow of the other country's democratically elected government. I'll let you figure out which country was the aggressor in that situation and then we can reconsider why Iran feels threatened by the US and its allies.

Are you talking about CIA games dating back to something like 70 years ago, during the cold war, to fight against USSR influence ? I don't think it's that relevant, unless you're willing to accept every pretext told by Iran. The first consequence of having the nuclear bomb would not be for the Iran/US relationship, it will be local for the region. It'll mean that Iran will have an even bigger local military influence…

Well, it's not as if the CIA participated in the coup in Iran, had a change of heart, and decided to change its ways. Quite the opposite! The CIA has shown a continued willingness to intervene and overthrow regimes that don't toe the line. Here's a list you might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...

Notice the last item on the list: Bush authorized the CIA to carry out operations aimed at destabilizing the government of Iran. So, yeah...Iran's probably not crazy to be worried about US aggression.

Not only that, but remember when Bush called out the "Axis of Evil"? Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Of those three, one had nuclear weapons at the time, one was in the process of developing them, and one had disassembled its WMD programs under UN supervision. Since then, one of those three has been invaded by the US, one has only received sanctions from the US, and one has received food and fuel aid from the US.

Do the math...

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#157

Post by AnimalMuppet »

toyg wrote: post #114
mason240 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> The Iranians can't be trusted. >National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over. The OP clearly means the theocratic regime, not the Iranian people themselves.

Large parts of that theocratic regime are elected.

... after controlling who can run for office.

If you let me select both the Republican and Democratic candidates, I'll happily let the people vote however they want.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#158

Post by Systemic33 »

maratd wrote: post #113
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…

> The unfaltering support given to Israel seems strange There's nothing strange about it. Yes, it is militarily aggressive and has to be considering the neighborhood. The support given is purely selfish as Israel is the only nation in the region which mirrors the values the US wishes to promote in the region, provides military support when needed, and a plethora of other various benefits which none of the other playe…

> with rampant antisemitism in Europe

Because Israel isn't escalating this at all with the palestine conflict...

Netanyahu is a warmongerer that keeps the conflict alive, because it serves his interests, in increasing antisemitism, resulting in jews feeling increasingly threatened, and starts to consider relocation to Israel, increasing support for Netanyahu.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#159

Post by selimthegrim »

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.…

Quoth Sheldon Adelson: "So what if Israel isn't a democracy (in the future). Who cares?"

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#160

Post by AnimalMuppet »

bsaul wrote: post #54
skylan_q wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to realize that Iran is threatened by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I won't be surprised when they break this deal and have their own nuclear weapons.

? Are you being sarcastic ? Since when did the US or Israel threatened Iran of anything ? It seems to me you're inversing causes and consequences. Hopefully looking at events chronologically will help you get things back in order.

Don't know about chronologically, but: Between the US and Iran, one country regularly has large groups in the streets, chanting about death to the other country. Which way does that flow, again?
Post reply on HN