Live data from Hacker News

US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

theguardian.com

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#601
post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will not happen. The only way Iran can enforce the fee is by actually shooting missiles at ships that don't pay. This is an act of war and terrorism; and in our current international order, is not viable solution. The UAE, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf countries, will never agree to it. Another reason it won't work -- by Iran's logic, every nation adjacent to a strait of water can levy a toll on ships that pass thr…

Gibraltar's political situation is what it is because this was sorted out in the Treaty of Utrecht three hundred years ago, and Europe got very tired of leaders that thought they could redraw the map at the cost of millions of lives. Probably the best we can expect from Iran is a frozen conflict like Korea or Cyprus, that stays frozen.

I disagree. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare.

Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, run a financial economy, pay salaries, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots.

Iran would collapse, within a week. It would collapse into factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.

The US and Israel have been sitting on this the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

Once Iran showed it had no ability to prevent the US/Israel from doing a indiscriminate bombing campaign, it was clear the US and Israel could always win this war.

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#602

It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror. The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. If winning and losing is the way you are framing this, instead of thinking about the humans that these actions affect, then we all have lost.

> The US threatened to obliterate a country and people

So the same thing Iran has been chating for decades

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#603

This is basically a win for Iran. 1. They replaced the decrepit Khameini with a much younger and more formidable Khameini. 2. “Pulled a Ukraine” vs the US showing defiance and have now rallied any wavering regime supporters against the American and Jewish “devils”. 3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them. 4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if…

[deleted]

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#604

America surrenders...hehehe.....Looks like Trump basically agreed to all 10 points (Truth and Social post).

I disagree. If this ceasefire had not happened, the US and Israel would bomb all of Iran's electricity and fuel facilities. That's what was supposed to happen today, and is what forced Iran to the negotiating table with an hour to spare. China and Pakistan told Iran to come to the table, and negotiate, because they do not want a collapsed Iran.

Without electricity, there is no modern life. There is no ability to communicate, run a financial economy, pay salaries, etc. Without fuel, there are no logistics; there is no capability to transport an army. Nor is there an ability to transport food; it would cause an enormous civilian crisis, and this would cause massive riots.

Iran would collapse, within a week. It would devolve into factions, and a civil war would start, similar to in Syria.

The US and Israel have been sitting on this card the entire time. They don't want to do it, because it would cause near permanent economic damage to Iran.

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#605

Iran's 10-point plan includes: 1. Guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again 2. Permanent end to the war, not just a ceasefire 3. End to Israeli strikes in Lebanon 4. Lifting of all US sanctions on Iran 5. End to all regional fighting against Iranian allies 6. In return, Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz 7. Iran would impose a Hormuz fee of $2 million per ship 8. Iran would split these fees with Oman 9. Iran t…

Iran's semi-official Mehr News Agency (via China's state news agency Xinhua[0]) claims the 10 points are: 1. U.S. commitment to ensure no further acts of aggression 2. Continued Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz 3. Acceptance of Iran's nuclear enrichment rights 4. Lifting of all primary sanctions 5. Lifting of all secondary sanctions 6. Termination of all United Nations Security Council resolutions against Iran…

Yeah 0% chance the US agrees to this.

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#606
This is not over yet and it may just result in an established fee for each shipment through the strait to Iran. We won’t/havent hear from Israel which is the key player here. They just do what they want to do because they know the whole world will look the other way.

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#607

It's disheartening to hear people talk about this in terms of won and lost. Is that how you think of these events? I think of them in terms of sadness and horror. The US threatened to obliterate a country and people, because gas was getting a little expensive. If winning and losing is the way you are framing this, instead of thinking about the humans that these actions affect, then we all have lost.

That doesn’t align with the perspective of actual Iranians I know. There are news reports of Iranian expats and opponents within Iranian who are disappointed with the ceasefire. They wanted trump to go further and destroy the regime. That aligns with conversations I’ve had with Iranians friends in the US and family members within Iran who want the regime destroyed so there is a chance of removing the Islamic theocrac…

Was one of them BBC, who quoted one Iranian resident as saying they were ok with the US nuking Iran, and then quietly removing that bit from the quotes with no note that the article was edited?

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#608
post #595

This is basically a win for Iran. 1. They replaced the decrepit Khameini with a much younger and more formidable Khameini. 2. “Pulled a Ukraine” vs the US showing defiance and have now rallied any wavering regime supporters against the American and Jewish “devils”. 3. Reminded the anti regime population that they’re not going anywhere and that the US can’t help them. 4. Showed everyone in the ME and the world that if…

I'm no fan of this administration but another way to look at things is that the US can essentially destabilize a region while facing mild commodity price increases. Actually it shows that the US could eliminate the leadership at its leisure even if it can't hand select the replacements. I'm also not sure the powers that be in the ME hate the rising oil prices. Again, not a fan of the situation and while I think it is…

It’s not the ME countries who are profiting, because they can’t export. So it’s a net loss. (Saudi and oman win a bit, but in no comparison to the iraq kuwait loss)

The winners are mostly: Russia, Iran itself and (margibally) the US. But mostly Russia.

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#609
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no talks or anything. Iran has no incentive to negotiate with a party as unreliable as the US is under Trump. I would literally negotiate with a dead opossum before I would continue to negotiate with Witkoff and Kushner. I mean, as much as I don’t like the Iranian government, put yourselves in their position. You have the US and Israel literally leveling the equivalent of Balfour or the White House and taki…

When you use words like "decapitation strike that failed, but killed off all of the moderates," what do those words mean to you? With all due respect, I don't really get the Internet brain way of thinking of things. What decapitation failed? I guess, if you mean, there are still Islamic Revolution people in charge, I still can't see the point. When you say "failed" that would imply that they were literally attempting…

> What decapitation failed?

decapitation was intended to result in regime change, but instead showed that the iranian system is perfectly capable of peaceable changes in power. what particularly failed is that the people the US wanted to champion as the new leaders of iran were also killed in the decapitation.

you can compare against the successful decapitation from christmas, where the US removed maduro, and championed rodriguez and now takes a cut of all venesuelan oil sales.

i think there's a reasonable argument that the ayatollah was a moderate, in a much more militant government. He's the guy that was making sure iran never built a nuke, and by observation, iran stood down after each attack the US/israel did on iran up until he was gone

"no one is illegal on stolen land" is perfectly reasonable - the american government has no actual legitimacy to control who comes and goes from land that doesnt belong to it. the various tribes do. its impractical in that the US genocided the legitimate owners and took it over by force, but its still the right and just end view. the US gets to kick people out of certain borders because it did a ton of brutal executions

Re: US and Iran agree to provisional ceasefire

#610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iran if they have any sense should be prepared for a massive self defense and counter attack. "Talks" from the USA and Israel have a precedent of being attacks and invasions.

If there's one thing that's pretty clear, it's that the Iranian government is quite aware of this and of how the US acts. The US government, on the other hand, seems oblivious to anything about how the Iranian government acts.

I am honestly surprised and shocked to admit but Iran is the sanest and least immoral side in this conflict and it's not because my views of Iran improved or changed much. I couldn't imagine I'd be saying such a thing a few years ago.
Post reply on HN