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

US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 192 posts

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#131

Post by nickthegreek »

bawolff wrote: post #97
4gotunameagain wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy, only continuation of the atrocities. This is not a ceasefire entered in bad faith, it is simply a strategic usage of one of the few tools that can end a war, and in my opinion morally abhorrent.

> The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy Israel has pretty consistently claimed they never agreed to a ceasefire in lebanon (and nobody is claiming this ceasefire changed anything in Gaza). Iran seemed to only claim the ceasefire included lebanon later on and not initially (afaict, not 100% sure). Honestly it makes one wonder if the te…

Pakistan, who worked with everyone to create the ceasefire, stated that Lebanon was included.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#132

Post by phs318u »

Protostome wrote: post #112
4gotunameagain wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone in their right mind next to Israel disarm ? So they can have their land occupied by ultra orthodox jew nazis ? And on the contrary, the major news outlets are infested by israeli propaganda. Letting israel exist ? Does israel leave Gaza exist ? Or the west bank ? Or Syria, or Lebanon ? Or any of those people that have been living there for thousands of years, not just 80 ?

[flagged]

> If all parties decide to lay down their weapons there would be peace tomorrow.

Which is why there will never be peace - tomorrow or any other day - because Israel wants everyone else to disarm, excluding themselves. How else are they going to keep expanding their settlements and keep the Palestinians in increasingly fragmented and shrinking bantustans?

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#133

Post by acdha »

YZF wrote: post #59
kumarvvr wrote: post #23

What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter? The only options left for US are large scale bombing, like in Vietnam or Cambodia OR putting soldiers on the ground. Going on for years. Or drop a nuke. Bombing will be of limited use and extremely costly, because is Iran is too large. Its a geographical fortress, mostly large mountain ranges, or deserts. Soldiers on the ground means a large scale…

To figure out the leverage just imagine 50 fighter jets over your head each with 6 heavy bombs where their goal is to blow you up. Now argue that those controlling those jets have no leverage. Bombing has limits but can also do a lot of damage. It's true not every single IRGC member or leader can be bombed out of existence. But many can. It's also true that some infrastucture is buried. But a lot isn't. Specifically…

> It's true not every single IRGC member or leader can be bombed out of existence. But many can.

In the last half century, we tried that in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. When is it going to start working?

The problem is that blowing stuff up creates enemies, not friends, so each time you kill one senior leader you create incentives for the other people those bombs killed to decide you’re worse than the target.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#134

Post by Protostome »

queenkjuul wrote: post #122
Protostome wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You trust the trump administration over Al Jazeera? Seriously? Get your head checked

Well, I didn't see anyone from Israel agreeing to a cease fire with Lebanon. did you?

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#135

Post by ndiddy »

Protostome wrote: post #114
cassianoleal wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. PM of Pakistan announced without a doubt after the agreement that Lebanon "and elsewhere" were included. "Western" media seemed to gloss over this "small detail". http…

[flagged]

> Vance said the cease fire doesn't include Lebanon, in his own voice

CBS has reported that the US originally agreed that the ceasefire included Lebanon but changed its position following a phone call between Trump and Netanyahu. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lebanon-israel-ceasefire-talks-... The New York Times has reported that the US had already seen and signed off on the text in Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif's statement regarding the ceasefire prior to him posting it. https://archive.ph/dH97R

If the best analysis you're able to come up with is "Al-Jazeera said one thing and Vance said another, so clearly Vance's statement must be accurate" and not doing any further investigation yourself, I honestly feel bad for you.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#136

Post by Protostome »

queenkjuul wrote: post #123
FunnyUsername wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Israel hadn't agreed to anything yet though. There was apparently some confusion in the Pakistani mediation. Vance called it a "legitimate misunderstanding".

Right, because Vance is a liar, happily lying on behalf of his boss

Maybe, doing the actual negotiations, not just reporting on it from a known position

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#138

Post by kelipso »

Teever wrote: post #55
ElProlactin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's less about restocking and repositioning air defenses. The expensive weapons systems the US and its allies are running short on can't be replenished in weeks or even months. I think this was more about buying time to prepare for a ground war and probably to try to come up with some semblance of a strategy. It also served as a useful way for Trump to throw Vance under the bus. If the negotiations were seri…

As I understand it Iran requested that Vance conduct the negotiations.[0] The speculation is that they did so in order to tarnish his image in the American people by attaching his name and face to the conflict which is something he appears to have been desperate to avoid. If this is the case it seems like an extremely effective way to kneecap the eventual successor to a very unhealthy 79 year old man who may die in o…

More likely they chose Vance because he is one the few people at the top of the administration who doesn’t have very close ties with Israel.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#139

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

energy123 wrote: post #75
kumarvvr wrote: post #23

What leverage does US actually have here? Even Israel for that matter? The only options left for US are large scale bombing, like in Vietnam or Cambodia OR putting soldiers on the ground. Going on for years. Or drop a nuke. Bombing will be of limited use and extremely costly, because is Iran is too large. Its a geographical fortress, mostly large mountain ranges, or deserts. Soldiers on the ground means a large scale…

The US holds more leverage than you may expect. First, the US can/will reopen Hormuz by force without a sustained ground occupation. Here's the former CENTCOM commander in April 2026: > GEN. MCKENZIE: Well, let me, let me say, first of all, we do have the ability to open the strait. Should we choose to do it in what you're seeing now are the- what I would call the precursor of the initial steps in such a campaign you…

I really can't see how the US can fully reopen the strait without a major land invasion. They'd need to occupy pretty much all the coastal regions to be able to prevent drones (air and sea) being launched to attack ships trying to pass through. The thing is that ships are going to be vulnerable for all of their journey through the Strait, so it's not like the US can just defend one part. They could try using escort ships, but that'll work out very expensive as they'll be destroyed by cheap drones sooner or later.

Even if the US manages to occupy all the coastal areas, then those areas become the new targets rather than the ships, so it'll end up being extremely costly to the US in terms of people and resources.

It's such a huge strategic mistake to attack Iran just to keep Israel happy.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#140

Post by mplanchard »

xethos wrote: post #91
YZF wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very hard to imagine nuclear weapons being used in this conflict.

It was hard to imaigne the United States sticking their nose in the middle east again It was hard to imagine America kidnapping a head of state, the president of Venezuela It was very hard to imagine Amercia threatening annexation of Canada and Greenland Your difficult to imagine world is closer to reality than I think either of us would like

Agree with the general point, but the second example shouldn’t have been that hard to imagine. We’ve done it before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Pana...
Post reply on HN