Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ cmilton 9 hours ago

It all sounds great. Which government? Is it a different regime? If not, why would the US concede?

▲marricks 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> why would the US concede?

Because it has no way of achieving its objectives.

▲cmilton 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think that has stopped anything so far, but I appreciate your optimism.

▲derektank 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

More accurate to say that the US is not willing to pay the price to achieve its objectives I think (depending on who/when you’re asking what exactly the objectives are of course).

▲firesteelrain 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It did achieve its objectives. Iran is of little threat.

▲SideQuark 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Iran was little threat to the US before the US attacked. Now the US likely has earned itself more decades of terrorists, while simultaneously losing its military and political support from other countries.

If the US objective was self destruction or massive face plant, it is certainly getting closer to its objective.

▲firesteelrain 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I’ve had no spam calls. Mission Accomplished.

▲BobbyJo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This ignores the possibility that we have set their nuclear program back to starting from scratch.

▲SideQuark 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored.

We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it. They now have massively more incentive to do so. Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons.

As do their allies, and the raft of allies the US has lost over this idiocy will hurt US for decades, likely never to be repaired.

This is why Iran has won. The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally.

▲BobbyJo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> It ignores we already had that, in 2016, with experts from all over the world doing inspections and agreeing it worked. Then Trump blew up the deal against the wishes of the rest of the free world, claiming he’d make a better deal, which he got zero from. Advisors, both hand picked and military, told him this would be the outcome, which he ignored.

1) JCPOA was in effect for barely more than two years. Iran's nuclear work prior started way back circa 2000. It was killed before we can say anything about its effectiveness.

2) IIRC, JCPOA didn't prevent Iran from developing nuclear tech. It only limited capacity. They were free to do all the R&D they wanted.

3) Iran was doing weaponization work prior to the deal which they didn't disclose. So taking them at their word on the subject is probably not a good idea.

Trump pulling out from the deal was dumb, because it probably was slowing weaponization down, but the idea that the deal was stopping Iran from developing weaponization tech is not supported by the aims of the deal itself.

> We have not set their program to zero. They now have, and will continue to have, people trained in the knowledge of how to rebuild it.

Very close to it. Lots of facilities were destroyed, and I believe a majority of their scientists were killed.

> They now have massively more incentive to do so.

Debatable. I can see it going either way.

> Countries in the region now have more reason to help. Countries the world over have more incentive to contain US idiocy, as yet again we screw their economies for made up reasons.

Nearly all the countries in the region want Iran gone. They are a destabilizing force for all their neighbors.

> As do their allies

Iran has pretty much 0 official allies. Their only allies come in the form of "we hate the US too, so we will help you be a thorn in their side"

> This is why Iran has won

Won what? If that's winning, then I'll take losing.

> The US has so destroyed brand US that it’ll never regain trust anywhere, economically, militarily, or morally.

This remains to be seen I think. Honestly, if Europe kicks us out I'll be happy personally. I look forward to the day the US isn't running the oceans as a toll road for the globe and everyone handles their own backyards. I think we are far enough past WW2 that the world no longer needs a nanny.

▲Hikikomori 2 hours ago | parent [-]

4 years as an provisional deal was done earlier. All us intelligence agencies agreed and testified to congress that Iran was not working towards a bomb as Trump ripped up the agreement. They were all wrong or what?

>This remains to be seen I think. Honestly, if Europe kicks us out I'll be happy personally. I look forward to the day the US isn't running the oceans as a toll road for the globe and everyone handles their own backyards. I think we are far enough past WW2 that the world no longer needs a nanny.

Pretty rich to day this given what US is doing now.

▲BobbyJo 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

You are ignoring the fundamental difference between the JCPOA's goals and the argument here. JCPOA was not a denuclearization agreement, it wasn't even a "no atomic bombs" agreement. All it did was limit centrifuge count, and enrichment density. Iran complying with those was mostly useless for the goal for the goal of preventing them getting an atomic bomb. It was effectively a stalling maneuver, one that would have partially expired last year.

▲cosmicgadget 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Weird, just a few days ago he said we needed two more weeks of war to destroy their nuclear program.

▲acjohnson55 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All those ships stuck on either side of the Strait of Hormuz and their insurers would beg to differ.

▲feb012025 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For the sake of peace... yes ;)

▲PierceJoy 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To whom, and to what? A military threat to the continental US, sure. To US allies in the region, and to the global economy, it appears Iran is a much bigger threat than we were lead to believe, and still are. If anything, they're justifiably more emboldened now than ever.

▲throwaway173738 6 hours ago | parent [-]

If you keep picking fights with someone don’t be surprised if they learn how to fight. There’s literally a line in Sayings of Spartans about teaching your enemy to fight by making war with them.

▲majormajor 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The most deadly attack on US soil from the Middle East didn't come from nukes.

How sure are you that we're reducing net total future threats in the Middle East under Trump?

▲goatlover 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then why was Trump threatening their annihilation prior to accepting the ceasefire around their proposal?

▲NomDePlum 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲alfiedotwtf 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You must not be paying attention…

So far, Trump said that the Straight of Hormuz closed is cutting off China’s oil supply and isn’t important to the US, the US doesn’t need allies, but after Trump got zero help from Europe he then proceeded to ask China of all countries to help in the straight?!

Knowing people travelling near and through the Straight, Iran has all the cards. “Iran is of little threat” doesn’t hold water when the US can’t even send ships though to protect container ships

▲firesteelrain 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I don’t think the US signed up to protect Chinese or Indian ships through the Strait. Also, it’s not blocked.

https://www.citriniresearch.com/p/strait-of-hormuz-a-citrini...

▲lumost 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because it doesn’t have a choice. There is no path to winning this war, just ways of making larger and more complex versions of the Iraq occupation.

▲acjohnson55 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Depends on what you mean by "win". It would be possible to go in, topple the regime and secure the nuclear material. But only at astronomical cost and years of blowback

▲lumost 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"Regime Change" has become a modern term for vassalization. We should not be surprised that countries with no reason to be a US vassal, and no long-term ties to the US refuse to remain vassals.

So then what would we achieve? nuclear material is cheap (10s of billions) relative to a multi-decade occupation (single digit trillions). It's undoubtedly true that Iran would revert to it's preferred form of government, geopolitical orientation, and nuclear capability once the US left.

▲SideQuark 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How’d that plan work out in Iraq or Afghanistan, both much smaller, less armed countries? Decades and trillions spent, and what exactly did the US “win”?

▲amluto 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The US won the removal of a regime in Iraq that strongly opposed Iran. </sarcasm>

▲jltsiren 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Winning a war means achieving your political goals while preventing the enemy from achieving theirs. Most of the time, you've won the war when the enemy effectively admits they lost.

The lack of will to use sufficient force to win a war is fundamentally no different from not having that force in the first place. Both are equally real constraints on your ability to win the war.

▲wrs 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why would the US start this in the first place? Be assured that however this comes out, a “Truth” will be posted assessing it as the Greatest Deal Ever and a Total Win, end of story.

▲8note 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

a major reason would be that they didnt think iran could selectively close the strait, and the intelligence about how not liking the current government is not the same as supporting the US

▲sosomoxie 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s been repeatedly stated by officials that we fought this war for Israel. We had nothing to gain and much to lose, and lose we did. Thankfully Israel also lost and I think this was their last chance at using the US as their attack dog.

▲kraken_cult 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We will see if this is all the chips that Epstein bought

▲mupuff1234 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

People are looking for conspiracy theories when the truth is simple - trump did it because he thought it would be an easy quick win that will put him in the history books.

▲sosomoxie 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s not a conspiracy theory if Trump and all parties involved explicitly state this was for Israel. The simplest explanation is that they are telling the truth, which makes sense since the US had nothing to gain from this.

▲rsynnott 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Netanyahu has wanted to do this for decades. If you rob a bank, you don't get to say "oh, well, my crazy friend down the pub has been saying we should rob a bank for ages, and I suddenly decided he was right"; you do have some personal responsibility.

▲tw04 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If not, why would the US concede?

Because Trump is already facing a bloodbath in the midterms and his next step is either a ground war or dropping a nuke, and both of those will ensure he not only loses the midterms but has a legitimate shot at seeing the inside of a prison cell.

▲goatlover 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because the escalation Trump was talking about would have wrecked the ME with Iran's retaliation on desalination plants, oil infrastructure, power plants, etc. Which would have been a massive shock to the global economy, along with a large humanitarian crisis inside of Iran and it's neighbors.

▲jojobas 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The old government is largely dead. The new one has a carrot and a stick in front of them.

▲ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The new government is led by the Ayatollah Khamenei. The son of the last one, younger and out for revenge.

Knocking off Saddam gave us ISIS. These things have a way of going sideways.

▲JumpCrisscross 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> new government is led by the Ayatollah Khamenei

Let's see. It may be a military dictatorship using Khamenei, who may or may not even be in Iran, as a figurehead.

▲int_19h 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Not the military, the IRGC. Which is a religiously indoctrinated military.

So it would still be a theocracy, same as before, but now also run by people who are conditioned to believe that more violence is always a solution to any problem.

▲alfiedotwtf 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Knocking off the Taliban gave us the check notes the Taliban

▲derektank 8 hours ago | parent [-]

The IRGC is probably more analogous to the Ba’ath party than the Taliban if we’re limiting ourself to regional comparisons

▲jojobas 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This son is reportedly in coma and in no position to rule.

▲ceejayoz 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yay! We cut off two of the hydra’s heads! That always ends well.

▲sosomoxie 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reported by whom?

▲alfiedotwtf 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So who has the authority to claim that Iran has agreed to a ceasefire?!

▲joshsyn 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲SideQuark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The old govt was about to be toppled by people sick of it. The US attack unified those people behind the leaders son, someone they’d not have taken before, and entrenched a new generation against the US. So far the carrot and stick has them openly mocking Trump and the US as Trump makes threat, draws line, folds yet again, repeats.