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

161–170 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#161

Post by dimino »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #144
jajool wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's too late for that now, though. The 5 nations that have them are the only five that will have them, if the 5 nations that have them have anything to say about it (and they do).

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#162

Post by AnimalMuppet »

hodwik wrote: post #85
EliRivers wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway. Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well". Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seri…

Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access. If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members. Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, i…

It's messier even than that. Iraq didn't have WMDs, but they wanted their neighbors to think that they did. But they wanted the inspectors to think that they didn't. So they couldn't have the inspections be unambiguously clear that Iraq had nothing, because then Iraq's neighbors wouldn't fear Iraq as much. So they tried to play this game of doubt, and the US reached the conclusion that Iraq wanted its neighbors to reach.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#163

Post by marcosdumay »

selimthegrim wrote: post #151
3pt14159 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read the cables.

The US does prefer puppet dictators. But most dictators do not stay puppet-like without a reason.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#164

Post by awfullyjohn »

angrybits wrote: post #126
threeseed wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of countries in the world that have questionable human rights records. Many of whom the "West" has quite strong relationships with e.g. China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia. Putting a blindfold on and pretending you can just contain or ignore certain countries has failed as a strategy and will continue to fail. So unless you want to do something about Iran militarily (not feasible) then you are lookin…

> The US is not good at wars. What? We can kick pretty much any country's ass six ways from Sunday. We admittedly have trouble with having the political fortitude to fully break our adversary's will to fight back, but I think that is a systemic issue with a faster flow of information (starting with Vietnam). It's not necessarily a US-specific problem, and it certainly doesn't mean the US is not "good at war". While w…

I'd read this as "The US is not good at cleaning up after wars" more than whether the US is good at "kicking ass"

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#165

Post by toyg »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #157
toyg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's exactly how large donors think in the US.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#166

Post by marcosdumay »

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.

Because that's what their supporting base wants to hear.

Must be said that such supporting base wasn't much big, and was losing people very fast until the second Bush said he'd invade the country. Then things changed overnight.

Today Iran is getting progressive again.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#167

Post by ysilver »

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…

>> and dig deeper into foreign policy journals

What journals do you read? I find it hard to believe you are reading mainstream foreign policy journals. Is there an issue of Foreign Affairs that supports your take?

To support your argument I think you'd best be served by referring to history books, not foreign policy journals. I think your argument generally fits with a dated foreign policy regime where weaker nations were seen along lines of resource extraction (see colonialism all the way to the first Gulf War) and ideological domination (see '53 Iran coup, Bay of Pigs attempted coup, VOA).

Fast-forward a few decades and energy security for NATO states has become quite strong primarily due to fracking. Key threats consist primarily in non-state actors radicalizing people abroad and anarchic environments abroad enabling the export of terrorism. Key opportunities consist in stable energy prices and opening new markets for goods/services. It's a lot easier to square the recent Iran deal with that world view.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#168

Post by EliRivers »

hodwik wrote: post #85
EliRivers wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's one thing we learned from the invasion of Iraq, it's that access for inspections doesn't matter. Iraq complied, the UN reports all indicated that there were no WMDs, the people who wanted to invade just made up some nonsense bullshit anyway. Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well". Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seri…

Access most certainly matters, we wouldn't have made that mistake with Iraq had we had reliable access. If you recall, one of the "smoking guns" that the administration used to move into Iraq were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi Republican Guard members. Those conversations mentioned "hiding" something before the inspectors got to a site. Since Iraq (like Iran) was allowed a few days before any visit, i…

Remember this graphic, much shown in the media?

The bullshit made up nonsense about mobile WMD factories? Yes. I recall that the thinking was that there were entire convoys of these driving around in deserts somewhere. They had to exist, right, because that explains why we can't find the WMDs.

The decision had been made. Access was irrelevant because the invasion was going to happen anyway. Any number of "smoking guns" could have been found, or just plain fabricated as necessary.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#169

Post by selimthegrim »

marcosdumay wrote: post #163
selimthegrim wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Read the cables. The US does prefer puppet dictators. But most dictators do not stay puppet-like without a reason.

I've read plenty of cables. I remember them bitching about Syria and listening to Saudi but I can't recall besides maybe giving some sort of ambitious April Glaspie type green light to Saudi Arabia (to support ISIS) anything like what the poster above is saying about ISIS.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#170

Post by pdeuchler »

discardorama wrote: post #145
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.…

> 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…

Wait, are you serious?

While the partition plan was ostensibly created by the UN, it was more or less completely designed and pushed through by the US. Israel, for all intents and purposes, is a US created state. Not only would the failure of Israel leave a huge black eye on US foreign policy, but Israel is also one of our most publicized allies. If we were to allow Israel to be overrun by an Arab consortium we would have zero soft power left when trying to convince states in hostile areas to side with us. We've doubled down on Israel so much in the past we've essentially backed ourselves into a corner, a corner that was tightened significantly when we lost "control" of Iran in '79. Israel is also the most heavily armed nuclear power in the middle east, and has one of the most advanced militaries in the world (although that's mostly thanks to us). That is why we continue to support Israel.

I'm not saying these are good reasons, but they're at least actual reasons as opposed to the politicized tripe that's in your linked articles.

Post reply on HN