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

141–150 of 192 posts

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#141

Post by energy123 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #139
energy123 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

The former CENTCOM commander said that all you need to reopen the strait is fires and short raids, not occupying the territory.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#142

Post by ndsipa_pomu »

energy123 wrote: post #141
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

The former CENTCOM commander said that all you need to reopen the strait is fires and short raids, not occupying the territory.

I don't see how that happens. What's to stop Iranians placing more mines in the water or launching drones to attack oil tankers?

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#143

Post by general1465 »

drnick1 wrote: post #10
ndiddy wrote: post #7

Ali Gholhaki, an Iranian journalist who often publishes first-hand news about impending developments with the IRGC, has reported that the US's demands were the removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, no nuclear enrichment whatsoever, and US management of the Strait of Hormuz. In exchange they were not offering any commitment regarding Lebanon. https://x.com/aghplt/status/2043092254416605522 Given that the US…

> Given that the US failed to seize Iran's uranium stockpile and failed to open the Strait of Hormuz militarily The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. When a country had most of its air force and navy destroyed, it is not in a position to demand anything. The Iranians have some missiles and drones left, but they are increasingly isolated and on their last legs…

This is comment on level "Russia did not try to fight properly yet!"

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#144

Post by energy123 »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #142
energy123 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The former CENTCOM commander said that all you need to reopen the strait is fires and short raids, not occupying the territory.

I don't see how that happens. What's to stop Iranians placing more mines in the water or launching drones to attack oil tankers?

Did you read what I wrote? I already laid it out. The US degrades the mines, mine laying vessels, and so on. Then the risk is reduced to a level that's acceptable for commercial shipping. That level isn't zero, despite what people say online. If you want a historical case study, look at the 1980s.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#145

Post by ndiddy »

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…

One thing that's repeatedly impressed me throughout the war is how effectively the Iranians have been able to tailor their PR and diplomatic strategies based on their deep understanding of American domestic politics and the West in general. I had always assumed that the Iranian leadership would have a closed-off and insular mindset, but many of them are highly educated and have spent years studying the West and Western diplomacy, have studied at Western universities, or otherwise spent long periods in the West. A few examples:

- Iran's foreign minister has a Ph.D in political thought from the University of Kent

- Iran's deputy foreign minister has a BS and MS in civil engineering from the University of Kansas, an MA in international political economy and development from Fordham University, and a Ph.D in political science from the University of Bern

- One of the main advisors to Iran's negotiating team grew up in Richmond, VA, has a Ph.D in English literature from the University of Birmingham, and is the former head of the North American Studies graduate program at the University of Tehran

I bet that there are people in the US defense department or intelligence community who have a similarly deep understanding of Iranian domestic politics, but I doubt that anyone in the US negotiating team or the current US political leadership in general really cares to hear what they have to say.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#146

Post by general1465 »

Arodex wrote: post #129
YZF wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. You have no leverage. The Vietnam war ended only 50 years ago and you behave as if it never happened.

Furthermore Iran is mountainous country. Bombing Iran is as pointless as bombing Germany in 1944 - Everything important has been under ground and did nothing to limit industrial output of the enemy.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#147

Post by general1465 »

energy123 wrote: post #144
ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that happens. What's to stop Iranians placing more mines in the water or launching drones to attack oil tankers?

Did you read what I wrote? I already laid it out. The US degrades the mines, mine laying vessels, and so on. Then the risk is reduced to a level that's acceptable for commercial shipping. That level isn't zero, despite what people say online. If you want a historical case study, look at the 1980s.

You can drop a sea mine from literal speed boat. Just kick it into a water. Why would you want to use a slow purpose build mine layer for that?

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#148

Post by general1465 »

freddydumont wrote: post #38
dh2022 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuinely interested: why not? Thanks!

VP is an elected official, not appointed by the president. President could sideline him, but his role in the senate cannot be removed except by impeachment.

Like Trump would not write an executive order to fire JD Vance.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#149

Post by mandeepj »

queenkjuul wrote: post #124
mandeepj wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran is China and Russia's pivot point into the West Yeah, Iran is just front face, this is Russia and China’s war. Latter entity gets to test all their technology, ammunition without actually being in the war. They did the same thing by using Pakistan while they were fighting India. https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/politics/us-intelligence-iran...

This war belongs to Bibi and Donny and nobody else

Totally! I was talking about Iran as a defending country

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#150

Post by WarmWash »

arrrg wrote: post #103
YZF wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The amount of suffering the regime in Iran and the US administration are willing to accept and can bear is probably wildly disproportionate and much higher on the side of Iran. That also substantially weakens any leverage the US has. A mere slight increase in gas prices and slight threat to the economy can already substantially weaken US will to fight …

Fighting people who think they are divine leaders with a mandate from God is the worst. No logic, no possibility of logic, and they will burn everything and anything to stay in power.
Post reply on HN