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

Internet traffic in Iran increasing

radar.cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 109 posts

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#61

Post by jmyeet »

bluegatty wrote: post #34
jmyeet wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Iran is acting like time is on their side. Because it is. The iceberg the rest of the world is about to hit in the coming month or two is strategic reserves of crude oil as well as refined petroleum products (eg jet fuel, gasoline, diesel) being drained. That's going to be a whole new level of suffering. Trump is doubling down on Israel's demands. That's the true stumbling block here. Israel wanted this war. They…

Time is on their side - except for the embargo. That stops 90% of their revenue and that's a very real thing. It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation. Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0. That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution. Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!

Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea?

Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: strategic bombardment. Cheap missiles, super-cheap drones, both easy to produce and launch and underground facilities that are largely immune to bombing.

Strategic oil reserves are getting perilously low [1] and everybody understands that Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest.

[1]: https://archive.ph/lWiwl

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#62

Post by whatever1 »

rayiner wrote: post #55
epistasis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons it would not have been attacked, but there was never any risk of Russia using nuclear weapons. This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is s…

> and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor Why is Russia so backwards and poor? Russia and Iran are two countries that seem to way underperform their fundamentals.

Because their institutions are completely corrupt. There are no rules to the game so the powerful take everything. It is a smaller pie but if I can have it all, why do I care?

Prosperity correlates with powerful institutions (not necessarily democratic). But ultimately you need a set of rules that even the state has to follow.

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#63

Post by jltsiren »

rayiner wrote: post #55
epistasis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons it would not have been attacked, but there was never any risk of Russia using nuclear weapons. This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is s…

> and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor Why is Russia so backwards and poor? Russia and Iran are two countries that seem to way underperform their fundamentals.

With Russia it's precisely because of their fundamentals. Too much depends on the people in charge, because Russia never developed effective institutions to constrain their leaders. When they have a good leader, they take a step forward, and when they have a bad leader, they take three steps backward. Bad leaders are always more effective, because it's easier to make things worse.

Medieval Russia was not too different from the rest of Europe, with all the little monarchies and merchant republics. The period of centralization that followed was also similar. But the accidents of history almost all went the same way. Monarchies defeating merchant republics and free cities. Muscovy being too good at conquering its neighbors, turning Russia into a huge centralized empire with little direct competition. The assassination of Alexander II before he could complete his reforms. The unholy mess of 1917–1922. The idealism of Gorbachev and Yeltsin that turned their reforms into a disaster.

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#64

Post by bluegatty »

t-3 wrote: post #54
bluegatty wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian" This is total delusion, honestly, it's why people in these systems will remain trapped for a long time. America has many problems but when people in places like Iran start on this bandwagon, it's evidence of inability to just weigh reality in the face of emotional rhetoric. Nobody is suggesting…

> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US. Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.

No, this is hyperbole.

Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together.

The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation.

DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall.

We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history.

The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to.

This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists.

Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.).

That's still the foundation.

We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order.

Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that.

Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently.

There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky.

It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives.

The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves.

Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history.

People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed.

If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well.

Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like.

And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc..

The world is shifting away from this, but not completely.

The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality.

[1] https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#65

Post by dakolli »

bluegatty wrote: post #37
dakolli wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"Don't fall for the trap where the US and Israel paints Iran as some authoritarian censor. The US is far more authoritarian" This is total delusion, honestly, it's why people in these systems will remain trapped for a long time. America has many problems but when people in places like Iran start on this bandwagon, it's evidence of inability to just weigh reality in the face of emotional rhetoric. Nobody is suggesting…

If you for some reason think Israel is less authoritarian than Iran, I really don't care to argue with you. They've been murdering tens of thousands of civilians and publishing videos of them bragging about it to the world. They film themselves firing machine guns into refugee camps and post it on their Instagram stories.

As a US citizen I will go to prison for a decade for donating school supplies to a state ran school in Cuba. If I donate a microscope or a glass beaker to a high school in Iran I will likely end up in prison for 10-20 years as a political prisoner.

All governments are repressive, Iran included, but if we're going to make a competition out of it its not even close. Iran's prison population isn't even as large as Texas's. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait actually has hijab rules, I don't see us carpet bombing their infrastructure to rescue the women and we're actively flirting with the idea of giving them nuclear weapons and already sell them our best defense tech.

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#66

Post by dakolli »

bluegatty wrote: post #64
t-3 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US. Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.

No, this is hyperbole. Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together. The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation. DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall. We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative p…

The US does occupy and control > 1/2 the world through financial instruments.

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#67

Post by bluegatty »

jmyeet wrote: post #61
bluegatty wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time is on their side - except for the embargo. That stops 90% of their revenue and that's a very real thing. It's interesting to see how far they think they can get away with this, but they are not in an easy situation. Soldiers and civil infrastructure don't last on $0. That money stops is the 'most likely thing' that will cause a real revolution. Both sides are hoping for 'regime change' by embargo it seems!

Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea? Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: s…

It's fair to say sanctions don't always work but otherwise this is wrong on every account.

- The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else.

- Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise.

- Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained and how it affects their ability to fight.

Russia is finally at the 'end of it's rope' ad Putin is talking about 'the war coming to an end' - why? Because the economic engine is failing, and people are starting to turn against him.

The 'hardship at home' is finally starting to take root, and it's putting a lot of pressure on Putin.

It doesn't mean the economy or regime collapses, but it puts Putin in a corner, in a weakened position.

- Iran is not North Korea - the leadership is not popular and the people are not 'brainwashed' like in NK, and economic sanctions will hit very hard.

The JCPOA put in place by Obama was by far the best deal, but failing that, the 'oil blockade' is by far the best option for getting Iran to the table, probably more effective than any of the kinetic actions. Iran has bout 3 months until the pain starts to hit.

The pain will hit 'the world' hard, but the US will only face mild inflation.

Paradoxically - that mild inflation will infuriate voters and cause 'regime change' in the US at midterms. So - you can see 'sanctions' are working for Iran as well.

- " Trump would rather let the world burn than restrain Israel in the slightest." this is false, and a total misunderstanding about Trump's position on Israel.

Trump has restrained Israel on many occasions. He went after Iran for his own benefit not for anyone else. It worked last year to bolster his image, then after 'Venezuela' Trump saw the obvious path to popularity. Netenyahu told him 'it would be easy' to win - and even do 'regime change' aka appealed to Trump's ego, not to the plight of Israel. Even on the domestic issues, DJT is mostly after AIPAC money and votes. He's not strongly ideologically aligned, and he's happy to do deals with Qatar, UAE, Saudi that throws Israel's security interest to the window.

Literally yesterday - Trump was plausibly going to offer 'a deal' that would have given Iran quite a lot, but it was his own pro-Israel senior political that forced him to backpedal. Senior GOP people came out and warned him off.

DJT wants out of this situation and would throw all of us - including Israel to the wind.

Note that Iran can re-organize their budget, change spending, get some Oil out otherwise, and 'prolong their burn' which then gives impetus for Trump to strike a deal.

But time is not really on Iran's side - they think they have a bit of an edge, but it's definitely a game of chicken.

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#68

Post by hollerith »

rayiner wrote: post #55
epistasis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons it would not have been attacked, but there was never any risk of Russia using nuclear weapons. This is just one of many many ways that people in the west fundamentally misunderstand Russia, and why so many people made fools of themselves thinking that Putin would not invade. The other really big one is that Russia never admitted that it lost the Cold War and thinks the war is s…

> and that it's the fault of the US and others that Russia is so backwards and poor Why is Russia so backwards and poor? Russia and Iran are two countries that seem to way underperform their fundamentals.

A lot of it is because transportation is quite difficult. Even today huge tracts in Russia are without any roads. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the US, where even before the railroad and the automobile, transportation was quite easy, with navigable rivers flowing through the best farmland in the world.

Another big piece is how easy it is to invade; how hard it is to defend. History records 50 invasions of Russia. For centuries Russian looked in envy at the very fertile land in what is now Southern Russia and Eastern Ukraine, but dared not farm it because it was swept regularly by quite fierce nomads on horses. That farmland became secure enough to farm only about 250 years ago.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Great Britain, which has been successfully invaded, but not after Britain got serious (about 4 centuries ago?) about having a good navy. When the risk of the investment's being destroyed by an invading army is low, more investment happens. And a navy profits more than an army does from technological investment: 100 years before Britain's industrial revolution, London was investing heavily in copper mining and copper refining so that it could give all of its warships a copper bottom.

The US is even more secure than Great Britain because any great power or middle power contemplating an invasion of the US would need to cross either the Atlantic or the Pacific to start the attack. (Yes, the invader could try to get Mexico to agree to host the invading army, but the US would probably find out about that plan and respond by either blockading Mexico or invading it if it doesn't immediately abandon the plan.)

Policies that work great for secure countries like the US and Britain work terribly for countries like Russia, China, Iraq or Iran that must always worry about a land invasion. The basic strategy the US and the UK used in WWII had been worked out by Britain during the Napoleonic wars. Japan and Australia can follow the same basic strategy. Russia cannot because except for a few heady decades during the Soviet Union and maybe in the 1890s, the best way to increase Russian security was always to invest more in the army what with the country's being so hard to defend against a hostile army.

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#69

Post by the_af »

drnick1 wrote: post #60
the_af wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here. Everybody understands Iran wasn't a threat to the US that warranted immediate action. Mostly everyone understands the aftermath of this war looks to be worse than the previous situation.

> Everyone is lost about what exactly was the US strategy here. The strategy is clear: out Iran as a paper tiger (accomplished last year), disarm the mullahs by sinking their boats and destroying the few aircrafts they had left, and humiliate the regime so that an uprising becomes more likely. Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too. I don't t…

You must be the only person in the world who thinks the "strategy is clear". Not even other Republicans agree with you.

Your claims are not what Trump said. He has claimed it was about regime change, then about an uprising, then about the nuclear program (though it was apparently destroyed forever during the previous war, it must have magically rebuilt itself), then about opening the strait (which was open before the war), then about blockading it, then about who knows what. The man can't keep his story straight and keeps flip-flopping about this. Meanwhile, there are real hints it's Israel leading the US into wars it doesn't want but there's no backing down now.

Just the fact the US wasn't able to foresee the closure of the Hormuz Strait, or at least effectively handle it without turning it into a major crisis, is evidence enough there was no strategy.

The US can very well destroy Iran, at great cost, and this isn't in doubt. But so far there's one country completely humiliated by this war, and it's not Iran.

> Same strategy that has already realigned Syria and Venezuela with U.S. interests, and that will soon take Cuba too.

Syria is more or less a failed country and the strategy was different anyway (and the world still doesn't completely understand the fallout from that collapse). Venezuela's regime didn't fall (they were humiliated into cooperation with the US while keeping their political structure intact; that war has a similarity with the current one in that Trump couldn't make up his mind, was it about freedom and democracy, about drugs, or about oil? Or maybe about getting a Nobel Peace Prize?). Cuba is a completely different case which has nothing to do with Iran (or do you think Cuba is months away from having nukes?).

I mean, come on, try not to be a cartoon hawk.

Re: Internet traffic in Iran increasing

#70

Post by jmyeet »

bluegatty wrote: post #67
jmyeet wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanctions don't work on enemies. We've had what? 4 years of sanctions on Russia now? How's that going? Iran has had over 40 years of almost uninterrupted sanctions. How was that going? North Korea? Sanctions force an enemy to build an economy to withstand those sanctions. This is easier when you can grow food, have water and have energy. Also, they've built their entire military to resist the one card you can play: s…

It's fair to say sanctions don't always work but otherwise this is wrong on every account. - The Soviet Union fell apart for economic reasons, not due to ideology or anything else. - Sanctions 100% work. North Korea is a powerless useless state due to sanctions. They have not collapsed, but they can't do anything otherwise. - Sanctions on Russia are absolutely effective - we can see how the state budget gets drained…

Name one time sanctions have worked. And relaly by worked I mean caused a regime to collapse or otherwise change. I can think of one: South Africa. And they were an ally not an enemy so they don't count. Sanctions against allies work great. Israel would collapse in a day if the US seriously floated sanctions.

USSR? Sanctions werne't the primary cause.

North Korea? The Kims have ruled for 60 years with no end in sight. So really we're just starving North Koreans for literally no reason. How has that "worked"?

Russia? That's funny. Russia has been weeks away from collapse for 3+ years now. It's not happening. Russia is going to sit on the Ukrainian territory they have until the West gets bored and the West will get bored. It's a war of attrition and Ukraine will run out of fighting men first. This was my prediction in 2023 after the last serious Ukrainina counteroffensive failed. The Iran situation makes this even more likely because Europe will need Russia's energy exports and that situation is only getting worse.

Iran's leadership? Whatever Iranians think of their leadership, they despise the US and Israel more. As always happens, factions unite against foreign invaders, particularly colonizers. Iranians remember well what the US has done to them.

There are actually two schools of thought on Iran:

1. they should've developed a nuke so they'd be left alone like North Korea. The Ayatollah who got assassinated actually had a fatwa against doing it. Many view this as a strategic error. Many think the region would actually be much more stable if Iran had a nuke because it would restrain Israel's child murder regime [1]; or

2. Closing the Strait is like a nuke but it's a nuke they can use. As such they don't need a nuke.

As for the pain, the US is torching the international order they've spent 70 years building at a rapid pace. NATO, the Island Chain Strategy for China, Taiwan, even the status of the US dollar as a reserve currency are all unravelling. The big winner here is China who simply has to... do nothing.

As for Trump, Israel and Iran, you kind of contradict yourself here. You say Bibi whispered in his ear. This is true and has been true for every president since at least Reagan. Only Trump was dumb enough to take the bait. I'd also love to know when you think Trump has ever restrained Israel. You might be tempted to argue the Gaza "ceasefire" but it wasn't really. The Gazans are still being bombed and starved, just not quite so much. Is that restraint? Not really. They've just moved their bloodlust to Lebanon with zero consequences.

As for the rumors about what Trump was about to do, yeah that's all bullshit. It's just market manipulation for personal profit and to desperately try to keep oil below $100/barrel.

I will agree DJT wants out of this situation. And he also thought he could do a decapitation strike like in Venezuela. And he could end it today but doing so requires breaking with Israel and he just won't do it. Not yet at least.

And yes, time is on Iran's side. I imagine much like North Korea, if this went on for 60 years there'd still be people insisting that Iran was weeks away from collapsing.

[1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/nuclear-armed-iran-would-b...

Post reply on HN