| ▲ | 3eb7988a1663 10 hours ago |
| "We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated."
The ten point plan which had previously been rejected outright? The 10-point plan which leaves Iran in an incredibly better financial position? So, apart from blowing up children, what did the US gain out of this? |
|
| ▲ | eclipticplane 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > what did the US gain out of this Market manipulation and the media largely forgetting about a certain set of files that reference many people in powerful positions. |
| |
| ▲ | Spooky23 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah the friends and family made a fortune from this, and we are teed up for the WTI options date which is… two weeks from today. | | |
| ▲ | koolba 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | How much did Iran make? There’s plenty of unregulated futures markets for them to make a massive short bet on oil. |
| |
| ▲ | Krssst 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Less oil on the market meaning higher fuel prices with the US being a net exporter. Not sure that was the plan but it looks like a benefit. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > looks like a benefit To who? I don't think the people paying half again as much at the pump feel like it benefited them. | | |
| ▲ | ecocentrik 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Oil producers that weren't disrupted over the last few weeks. | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I don't think the people paying half again as much at the pump feel like it benefited them. Since when has the current US government done anything to benefit average citizens? The war in Iran helps those who actually matter -- the oil companies that spent 445 million dollars getting Trump and other Republicans elected in 2024. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think you may be agreeing with my sentiment, though it is hard to tell since your point is entirely orthogonal. | | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am definitely agreeing. Just pointing out that oil prices going up definitely looks like a benefit to the people the government is beholden to (which ain't the average citizen). |
|
| |
| ▲ | kakacik 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I cant even talk without insults when it comes to you, and so does everybody I know. That sounds awful. Touch grass, perhaps? Even MAGA does not talk about me that way. > microscopic shrivelled balls I would like to think HN participants were better than this type of rhetoric. But I see your account is fairly new, so maybe things are changing. | | |
| ▲ | _carbyau_ 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | On the one hand the comment was highly emotive and out of line. But the basic point does stand that the US has not done itself many favours in worldwide relations recently. Think of all of the people worldwide associating "US war with Iran" and their personal living cost inflation. With a large population the US surely has many nice/intelligent/courageous/competent people. Not very many of them are visibly meaningfully active to the rest of the world however. |
| |
| ▲ | s5300 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | gamegod 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Giving the oil companies, some of the richest companies on the planet, MORE money is a benefit? Is that your idea of good governance? You don't think there's better uses of that money that's coming right out of your pocket and everybody elses? | | |
| ▲ | Krssst 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's absolutely not my idea of good governance, playing with oil prices is extremely dangerous considering that economy is strongly tied to them. Starting a useless war is crazy in the first place. But it is more money in America (for the government / oil producers to misuse) which is a benefit from the standpoint of the government. Not sure it exceeds the losses though. | |
| ▲ | bigblind 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is a benefit if you're a stakeholder in those companies, or your friends are stakeholders and will pass on some of the winnings as a "thank you." |
|
| |
| ▲ | outside1234 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you talking about the Epstein files that he is in? |
|
|
| ▲ | mcs5280 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| His insider buddies bought the dip so it's time to pump. It's all about enriching themselves with inside information |
|
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this 10 point plan drops the need for US to pay reparations instead relying on transit fees which will be split with Oman. Missiles are still flying so it’s hard to say who has really agreed to what. I’ve heard rumors that Iran has agreed to dilute its highly enriched uranium so maybe the US could count that as a win. Given they’ve demonstrated sufficient conventional deterrence they may feel that they don’t need the nukes, especially if they can get some sort of Chinese backed security guarantee. But that might be a trial balloon or wishful thinking. |
| |
| ▲ | defrost 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IIRC they had already agreed to dilute the HEU during the negotiations ongoing at the time Trump launched the most recent war / not war / excursion. | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yeah, the US overplayed its hand and is in a weak bargaining position and will likely have to accept less than what it could have had. Now with TACO Tuesday who could take his maximalist carpet nuking threats seriously anymore. I hope to be wrong but I doubt the ceasefire holds. | |
| ▲ | outside1234 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Under Obama's plan they agreed to reduce its Uranium 97% and keep it well under weapons grade and got $2B for the assets that were seized after the revolution. Here they stand to make $100B a year on tolling the gulf and get to keep their weapons grade Uranium that they stockpiled after Trump pulled us out of that agreement. Just so much winning | | |
| |
| ▲ | ajross 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | FWIW, money is the easiest term to agree to. We have lots and lots. I agree, it will never be called "reparations", but you can trivially structure it in a zillion ways that just look like foreign aid or debt forgiveness or whatever. The WHO forgives some loans or the UN agrees to build some infrastructure, and we coincidentally make a new fund of about the same size, etc... | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think it’s less about the money and more about a formal declaration who won the conflict. The loser sues for peace / pays reparations. | | |
| ▲ | swat535 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Iran and US can each declare "victory". TRUMP can say he achieved his objectives, IRAN can say it "won". What IRAN is really after is lifting the sanctions and ensuring that Israel will not attack again randomly in 2 months. The problem is that Israel is not going to be happy about this, so I full expect another round of escalation eventually. The only way to deter this is Nuclear Weapons unfortunately and IRAN very well understood this. No matter what the agreement says, we can be assured Israel will break it, as it has done time and time again. Why would this round be different? |
| |
| ▲ | mikehotel 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What if Iran refuses payment in USD? For reparations, tolls, or for future sale of oil? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bawolff 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Its only a 2 week ceasefire. Maybe after 2 weeks the sides stay settled down. Maybe they go back to shooting each other. I wouldn't call it over yet. As far as the geopolitical consequences of all this, i think its still pretty unclear where the chips will fall, but whether a win or a loss for usa, i think the consequences of this war will be significant. |
|
| ▲ | dzonga 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| some people got very very rich. like rich - that their great grandkids don't have to work. that's the price of "freedom". both sides get to save face - Trump says they won, his cronies n himself got rich. Iran gets a better deal than before.
Israel gets rid of US bases in the Middle East via Iran. of course the poor and downtrodden get shifted - that never changes. |
|
| ▲ | scoofy 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Honestly? I presume Trump and Iran both gain the ability to kick the can... which they both want. That ten-point plan is 'unrealistic' but he gets to beat his cheats and it looks like both sides are 'claiming' victory here. That this isn't a workable long-term solution seems almost irrelevant. We're at a point where our bargaining frictions are so high, that we'd both rather remain in this standoff as long as possible even if we don't actually resolve it, because resolving it means serious pain on both sides, whereas the US has about a week before the pain really starts hitting consumers and investors. "What Causes Wars: An Introduction to Crisis Bargaining Theory", by William Spaniel, PHD and professor, specializing in game-theory and specifically crisis bargaining theory: https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA |
| |
| ▲ | ajross 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > That this isn't a workable long-term solution IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and nuissance to a genuine regional overlord in a single tweet. "Whoah there, folks. Stop your tankers please. Thanks. Last year was rough for our farmers. We're increasing tolls on the straight again. Don't like it? Come on over and bomb us again you infidel fucks. See how your precious stock market likes that." | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If it holds they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel, which is why Israel will not let it hold. They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel No, neither Israel nor Iran would be hegemon. (Is there a term for contested hegemony?) > They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now When does Israel have to hold eletions? | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I warned you specifically that this Iran war was coming and would not end up in Israel’s favor. As I stated “the Iran war is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.” I understand that it is not yet over. Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza. I see this war as a breakout attempt to fracture Iran into a failed state so that Israel would be the uncontested regional hegemony. Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support. You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support This is a very Western-centric view. Step outside that gap and you'll find Israel maintains solid ties in the Emirates, India and even in Europe. In any case, on the time horizons you're talking about anything can happen. If someone wants to hold on to random hopes, I'm not going to rain on their parade. > Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza This doesn't make sense. Gaza was blockaded. Iran and its proxies have zero ability to blockade Israel. (Hell, Israel has an easy option if they do–bomb Kharg.) Take Israel's nonsense in Palestinian territories and Iran's penchant for terrorist proxies out of the equation and the Middle East is more or less balanced. (Famous last words.) > You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it Israel isn't dumping America. If you're continuing a thread from another time, I was probably arguing that the notion that Israel existentially depends on America is nonsense. Israel depends on America to be a regional hegemon. (Probably.) But it's perfectly capable of turning its military-export machine and gas fields into sources of sovereignty. Anyone who thinks the region is anything less than transactional has emotionally wedded themselves to a cause the world isn't invested in. | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | We will have to agree to disagree on Israel’s long term viability without the support of the US. Perhaps if Iran was defeated but so far that has not happened. | | |
| ▲ | 8note 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | look again at iran's peace terms - there's nothing in them about destroying israel, and this is Iran shooting its best shot. Israel might not be able to contjnue with the genocide, expand its borders, or be a hegemon without US support, but the other powers around aren't calling to destory it or using the lack of its destruction as a bargaining chip. Israel's continued existence is pretty secured unless it falls apart from within | | |
| ▲ | cjbgkagh 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is not peace terms it’s a ceasefire, and most likely it’s not even that. It appears little has changed except Iran can now charge a toll. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | scoofy 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position. Saving face is great and all, but rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway. My point is that their demands are not realistic. That the can has been kicked is good for Iran, it's also good for Trump. Conflict here is bad for both parties, the problem is there I currently don't see a way to step back from the precipice at this point. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position Iran will get a buttload of cash from China. If we're copying their kit [1] China can one hundredfold. (If Iran can keep playing its role as a heatsink for American weapons, better still.) [1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/iran-war-shah... | |
| ▲ | ajross 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. They lost some military hardware they couldn't have deployed anyway, they have a bunch of holes in runways that they'll fill within the week. They lost their head of state and a bunch of miscellaneous leaders, but it turns out their chain of command was robust. It's gotten stronger for the stress and unity, not weaker. No, we have to take the L here. The USA went to war with Iran and got its ass kicked. We achieved nothing useful in the short term, and made things much (much) worse for our interests in the long term. | | |
| ▲ | itsmek 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days: "Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population If Trump's tweet meets this bar, it's a meaningless rule. The purpose wasn't to scare civilians. It was to scare Iran's leadership. What it probably wound up doing was scaring American leadership into talking the President down from his ledge. | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | He does, he's unhinged and no one from his government / chain of command is willing to stop him. He doesn't sound dangerous because he's cunning and smart, he's unpredictable because he's demented and his court is fine with it. | |
| ▲ | itsmek 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Cool that's a nice workaround of the Geneva conventions - any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy! The law tends not to be friendly to such workarounds in my experience, especially if it's trivially easy to enact ("be in negotiations"). Or perhaps you can help me understand what distinguishes this situation in the way you suggest. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy No, I'm saying there is no evidence the threat was made "to spread terror among the civilian population." If the threshold is just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians, then the rule is meaningless. Whether it's done during negotiations is irrelevant. I don't have a crystal ball into Trump and Hegseth's minds. But I don't get the sense the threats were aimed at the civilian population. Instead, they were aimed at leadership. | | |
| ▲ | itsmek 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah. Didn't he threaten to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country? Do you not find this threat credible? I think the US military is capable of it and obviously that's a threat against the lives of civilians. But it's not a war crime if it's "aimed" at the leaders or because Trump generally bloviates something like that? Any explanation I come up with is exactly the kind of legal workaround I'm talking about. "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will," > "just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians" I think we just may be working with totally different perspectives on this since I'm struggling to see this the same way as you. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dboreham 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Funny how the smart people in the room sometimes turn out to be right. | |
| ▲ | scoofy 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it. I mean there is no world policeman that’s going to stop Trump. While I agree with you on the practicality of the situation, we have been on tenterhooks all day exactly because Trump can dramatically escalate this if he wants. It’s just that that escalation will be extremely painful in all sorts of ways, especially if Iran wipes out the oil production infrastructure. My point here isn’t to “pick a side.” I obviously think this whole escapade was unwise. My point is only to point out that the bargaining frictions point to continuing the conflict. Iran is happier to delay because the oil crisis is about to hit America. Trump is happy to delay because he can always launch a strike tomorrow, and concessions via existing infrastructure breakdown, or improve his position with intelligence, and this may prevent a more serious oil crisis. That means both parties see opportunity in maintaining the status quo. |
|
| |
| ▲ | technothrasher 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > We're increasing tolls on the straight again. They're increasing tolls on the strait again. This strait isn't particularly straight. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | Avshalom 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No available evidence suggests that Trump and Hegseth don't just like blowing up children. |
| |
| ▲ | tjpnz 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Trump's partial to more than that. | |
| ▲ | nickff 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ayatollah-era Iran has literally sent children through fields to activate and ‘clear’ mines. Your comment is just noise. | | |
| ▲ | Avshalom 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well it's a good thing we blew up those children before they could blow up those children I guess... A least Iran isn't poised to come out of this in a stronger position than it started. | |
| ▲ | _moof 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's possible for both parties in a conflict to be horrible. | |
| ▲ | georgemcbay 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whatabouting the "other guy" doesn't make any kind of cogent point here. The Ayatollah was fucking awful. Trump is awful. Hegseth is awful. They are/were all three fucking awful. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 7thpower 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don’t know, but I hear the Trump boys are going to be doing a JV on some gold plated Persian toll booths. That family has unreal foresight. |
|
| ▲ | panick21_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The US got what it actually needed in the Obama area nuclear deal. Trump wont get much more useful stuff. |
| |
| ▲ | overfeed 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Trump wont get much more useful stuff. If Iran can kickback 8- or 9-figures of the strait tolls to Trump's personal accounts, he'll find it very useful. |
|
|
| ▲ | incompatible 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Trump kept his name in the headlines, for a narcissist that's all that matters. |
|
| ▲ | babypuncher 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It successfully pushed the Epstein files out of the news cycle for an entire month. |
| |
| ▲ | dboreham 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The war began because the Epstein compromising material will likely be made public soon. Once that material is public it ceases to have any value to those who were holding it over various people. Those people in turn were ensuring US military support of a certain country. The logic of the war is that it had to happen now, before that material is released, because after that there is some chance the USA would no longer support said country. |
|
|
| ▲ | ajross 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > what did the US gain out of this? The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn't. It's been clear for weeks now that the US has lost this war. The only question was how long it would take Trump to disengage and what the trigger would be. And the answers appear to be "two more weeks" and "when one plausibly genocidal gaffe went too far and fractured his domestic coalition". [1] Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb. |
| |
| ▲ | p1necone 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb. I rarely hear people use the term "steelman" while arguing in good faith. It's basically a tacit admission that you are either advancing a position that you don't actually hold (why...?), or more likely you know it's an unpopular position and you want to argue it while having plausible deniability that you may not actually hold it (which is just cowardly). Stepping through other peoples logic to understand why they may have a position that you do not understand/agree with is sensible for sure. But if you do that in conversation with others so often that you need to preface it with a special term I'm going to be suspicious that you're just trying to obfuscate your actual opinions. (see also: "just playing devil's advocate here, but...") | | |
| ▲ | Rury 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You'd be right to be suspicious. The term "steelman" arose from people who misunderstand the term "strawman". Such people coined it out of the idea thinking that a strawman was an an attempt to make an opponents argument look weaker than it is, while a "steelman" elevates it to it's highest state before attacking it. In reality, a steelman is just another strawman. A strawman was never simply a matter of making your opponent's argument look weak, they're about making a separate argument that your opponent isn't even arguing, and attacking that to make it look like you're winning the argument while not actually addressing the opponent's actual argument/position. A steelman does the same. In other words, they're about fabricating an argument and making it look like it came from the opponent, before attempting to prove it fallacious. They're both failures in logic - a fallacy of relevance. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | chatmasta 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| What are the chances Claude was used on both sides of this negotiation? |
| |