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

91–100 of 192 posts

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#91

Post by xethos »

YZF wrote: post #73
thefounder wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think dropping a nuke is not out of question. We just have to watch the language of the U.S administration over the next weeks.

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

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#92

Post by Protostome »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #87
bawolff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true of pretty much every ceasefire ever, and both sides are almost certainly taking advantage of the ceasefire to do that. Even ceasefires entered in good faith often collapse so countries always try and reposition stuff during the ceasefire for when/if that happens.

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.

Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#93

Post by Gud »

mandeepj wrote: post #66
Rotdhizon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is heavily speculated that the rescue op on the downed pilot was a cover for a failed op regarding HEU extraction in that area. The info available on it online makes no sense for it to have just been a rescue op. What legitimate reports detail their military losses? Practically every single thing the US is pushing out is pure untrustworthy propaganda on the subject. Even if those specific elements are destroyed, i…

> 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 is USAs war, nobody else wants it.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#94

Post by 3eb7988a1663 »

Gud wrote: post #90
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public information on Isfahan says the entrances to the underground areas is still caved in from the prior bombings. Unless the Iranians have already dug out the tunnels, the soldiers would have to land in enemy territory with their own heavy equipment. Then attempt to excavate the area while open to counterattack. If it were so easy that commandos could drop in and dig out the site in a day - seems improbable that t…

Why would that be prudent? Seems to me the underground fortress is working well.

A defensible fortress is nice, but even better if the enemy does not know where you hide the goods. Supposedly there is <1000 pounds of the good stuff, you could move that anywhere. Without any immediate plans to use the uranium, securing it for the future strikes me as the sound choice.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#95

Post by bawolff »

drnick1 wrote: post #78
bawolff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. That's true, but also irrelavent. USA probably could do these things if they tried, given enough time and resources. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Hence negotiations. Iran probably sees that the war is incredibly unpopular in USA and figures trump lac…

> It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Events so far suggest the opposite. This is the first president in decades that took decisive action against Iran. Iran is weaker than ever, and this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region wi…

I agree with most of what you wrote other than the first sentence. Iran is weak right now, relative to the past. That is probably why the war is happening now as opposed to in the past.

Nonetheless, Trump has been utterly incompetent on the political side of things. There is low support for the war in USA, which directly translates to being risk averse when it comes to casualities (or even short term oil prices!). Trump is happy to bomb iran from planes. He does not seem willing to put american soldiers at risk in a significant way or be in it for the long haul. I'm pretty sure Iran has noticed this and it informs their strategy.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#96

Post by adrian_b »

drnick1 wrote: post #78
bawolff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The U.S. hasn't even come close to trying to seize the uranium and open the Straight militarily. That's true, but also irrelavent. USA probably could do these things if they tried, given enough time and resources. It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Hence negotiations. Iran probably sees that the war is incredibly unpopular in USA and figures trump lac…

> It seems pretty clear that Trump doesn't want to spend the resources (and lives) required to do so. Events so far suggest the opposite. This is the first president in decades that took decisive action against Iran. Iran is weaker than ever, and this is perhaps a once in a century opportunity to end the Islamic threat once and for all. If Iran folds, Hamas, Hezbollah, and others will quickly follow and the region wi…

What you say is absolutely ridiculous.

Israel would have been now at permanent peace if they had not murdered Yitzhak Rabin, or if Ariel Sharon had not succeeded to sabotage the government of Ehud Barak and to restart the hostilities with the Palestinians.

No matter how much they succeed to destroy in Iran, that will never bring peace any closer. By going on this path, there is only one way to achieve "peace": kill every Iranian, man, woman and child, and kill every descendant of Palestinians, man, woman and child and also kill any other Arabs or Muslims who may feel solidarity with genocide victims. Until the "final solution" is achieved, any human who is killed makes peace less likely, not more likely. Therefore any supporter of the idea that the Iran war means "progress towards peace" is a supporter of the "final solution".

The reason why there is no peace is because a part of the elites of Israel do not want peace, because the permanent state of war in Israel has been extremely profitable for them. In no other country is it possible to exploit the employees so hard as in Israel, because those who would attempt to have a better balance between work and personal life would be labeled as non-patriotic traitors, who want their country to be defeated by its enemies. This permanent war economy is perfect for Israeli business owners and for the Israeli government.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#97

Post by bawolff »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #87
bawolff wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true of pretty much every ceasefire ever, and both sides are almost certainly taking advantage of the ceasefire to do that. Even ceasefires entered in good faith often collapse so countries always try and reposition stuff during the ceasefire for when/if that happens.

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 terms were even written down. Seems like an easy solution to this problem would be to just publicly release the ceasefire agreement document.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#98

Post by 4gotunameagain »

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…

I am talking about the previous ones. For the current one, it is clear that Israel is trying to force the deal to go south by continuing to bomb civilians in Lebanon, because it does not want the war to end.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#99

Post by hugh-avherald »

adrian_b wrote: post #84
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have my doubts. There was a previous BBC piece[0] which went into some of the challenges with such a mission. The first being: it is not publicly known where Iran is storing its uranium. There are many putative options, most of which are going to be hardened and underground. Isfahan is near the middle of the country - safely getting troops there would already be challenging, let alone digging up any from the collap…

While it is hard to believe that someone in the US military believed that such a mission for uranium extraction can be successful, it is at least equally hard to believe that the US military has spent around a half of billion dollars just for saving 2 men, while also risking the lives of a very large number of other US combatants. Saving your men is important, but it should have been easy to do that at a much lower c…

I can certainly believe that the assurance the US gives to its pilots that they will never be left behind and the public demonstration of that assurance as something the US values in the billions of dollars.

It is also clear that if the mission was not a purely rescue mission then it would have taken a lot more equipment than what appears to have been used. Even for an escalade style high-risk low-probability mission it would be inadequate.

I think the most likely version of the claim would be that the Pentagon would have used the planning and execution of the mission as a valuable opportunity to learn for a dedicated mission to extract uranium in a contestable theatre. But even that is pushing it.

Re: US – Iran negotiations end with no deal reached

#100

Post by 4gotunameagain »

Protostome wrote: post #92
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.

Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself

Like you I do not have a direct line with the diplomats of the involved countries, but every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement.

What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.

Post reply on HN