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

171–180 of 309 posts

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#171

Post by thwest »

ysilver wrote: post #167
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…

>> 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…

Greenspan's autobiography goes over this. US DoS/DoD define Middle East "stability" as the stability of the energy markets, not the stability of Middle Eastern national polities.

Foreign Affairs treats this as an implicit assumption. FA wouldn't tarnish their place in the NATO clerk vetting process by making a claim like this explicit. Their profit model depends on it.

In case you missed it, OPEC dumped on the market months ago and US shale production well counts have plummeted.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#172

Post by refurb »

simonh wrote: post #82
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.

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…

In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution.

You're missing the other side of the equation. The USSR used Cuba (and Cuba used the USSR) to repress the people of Cuba. Cuba was just a superpower pawn.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#173

Post by [deleted] »

ohitsdom wrote: post #147
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.

[deleted]

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#174

Post by colordrops »

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.

Saudi is the puppet dictator that funnels support to the Sunni militants (ISIS). Iran supports the Shia. Pretty simple dichotomy.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#175

Post by girmad »

dimino wrote: post #161
FeepingCreature wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The number is closer to 9.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#176

Post by dang »

seivan wrote: post #48
toyg wrote: post #36

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. > If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"? > Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup ... when the alternative would have been m…

US reliance on Turkey is just a strategic position against Russia. You're a fool for thinking any deal with Iran will bring something like that to the Table. Your blind faith is incredibly disturbing.

This and your previous comment break the HN guidelines.

Please don't post comments unless they are both civil and substantive.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#177

Post by thwest »

selimthegrim wrote: post #169
marcosdumay wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US very publicly supported the FSA, and while under the advisement and training of the CIA, the FSA fizzled out and most anti-Assad fighters left and joined Daesh or al Nusra.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#178

Post by selimthegrim »

colordrops wrote: post #174
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.

Saudi is the puppet dictator that funnels support to the Sunni militants (ISIS). Iran supports the Shia. Pretty simple dichotomy.

Saudi is throwing returning ISIS volunteers in jail and people like al-Maqdisi and al-Odeh have heaped criticism upon ISIS for being an illegitimate caliphate and violating the obligation to obey 'ulu al 'amr

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#179

Post by dimino »

girmad wrote: post #175
dimino wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The number is closer to 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...

Good call, I was completely wrong in what I thought the state of nuclear weapons proliferation was.

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

#180

Post by hodwik »

user_0001 wrote: post #118
hodwik wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not forgetting the US uncessingly trying to undermine the weapon inspections to their own end, according to Blix [1] Before Blix was sent in, again the cover of "International" weapons inspection (note, not US inspections) were subverted by the US spying and constant attempts to discredit the results if they were wrong (wrong as in not the US version of events) [2] [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2966639.stm…

[1] Blix didn't say the US "uncessingly" tried to undermine the inspectors. He said that he believed there had been a single leak from someone in the US Government about Blix's failure to report two weapons, and was unable to say who did it -- "Also disturbing, he said, was the question of who was responsible for the falsification."

[2] Spy agencies spy. That is to be expected.

Post reply on HN