Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> it's working

The last deal for de-nuclearization already worked, but it was inexplicably terminated.


Explications: supporting war in Yemen, Al Assad, Hezbollah, etc.

And yet none of those explications were cited by Trump. They would seem like obvious rhetorical wins for populist support of the fight against terrorism. A more honest explanation would have to ask what the US government stands to gain from renewed sanctions of Iran.


Nope. There have been multiple reports that validate the claim that the deal was terminated by a combination of Trump's personal distate for a deal negotiated by his predecessor and a proliferation of Iran hawks in the Trump Administration.

It's not "denuclearization" if you continue to enrich, retain all nuclear infrastructure, and if the deal expires after a few years. Parts of the "deal" were expected to expire as soon as in 2026.

Where do people get these talking points from?

Intelligence chiefs have testified in front of congress that Iran was following through with it's end of the deal. The US then unilaterally decided to tear up the treaty and put in economic sanctions based on nothing. It's almost as if they want Iran to build nuclear weapons. It's also putting pressure on Europe to pull out of banking and business ties that were built after the embargoes were ended.


> Where do people get these talking points from?

From the text of the deal itself? All the nuclear restrictions were for "15 years", and some for 10 years. After that? Unclear.

Surprised at the downvotes - read the text for yourself: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-tex... search for 15 years, it's the plain fact of the matter, not some "talking point".

Most deals of this nature are going to have a sunset clause, this doesn't seem to be a big deal. Before 15 years is up, there's just a new negotiation.

No, most deals have a withdrawal clause, where either party can end the deal.

They don't normally have a set end date.

A set end date basically means Iran plans to restart activities on that date without any kind of sanction. There's a reason this deal was so heavily criticized.

You didn't address this idea that nuclear power does not require Iran to enrich uranium. The deal seems faulty if they can still enrich uranium, regardless if they were following it or not.

Every NPT-signatory has the right to enrich.

Iranian media announced and then the IAEA confirmed Iran had breached the limit on uranium they were allowed to store.

>The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which monitors Iran’s nuclear program under the deal, confirmed in Vienna that Tehran had breached the limit.


Yeah, after the US unilaterally pulled out of the deal.

It's the best deal they could negotiate. It was done by moderates on the Iranian side who have now been discredited and the hardliners are ascendant.

If you think military provocations and escalations are a sign that sanctions are "working" you're in for a surprise. All it takes is one side to make a little mistake and it escalates quickly and unintentionally.

Trump has emboldened the Iranian military by pulling his punches. Now they assume they can take action without a military response from the US because Trump is not willing to go to war. That logic unfortunately makes war more likely.

>> It's the best deal _they_ could negotiate

Exactly my point. Doesn't mean it's a good deal.

By definition the alternative is a worse deal.

More sanctions won't necessarily produce a better deal. Iran can also have a military response or build a bomb.

> By definition the alternative is a worse deal.

You need to let go of the illusion that there was any actual permanent "deal" in place at all. What was in place was a temporary stopgap at best, and Iran would exit from that stopgap with multiple avenues to building nuclear weapons within a year or two after the expiration of its provisions. If the goal was to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, the "deal" didn't accomplish that at all, it merely postponed it. Letting an extremist theocratic regime (and a known sponsor of terrorism) eventually arm itself with nuclear weapons in a powder keg that's the Middle East seems like a terrible deal to me. Much worse deal, in fact, that not doing anything about North Korea for two decades.

I know what the deal was and I now who the Iranians are. I'm not defending them. The point is that was the deal that could be done and it had Iran voluntarily not building a bomb or enriching uranium. That was verified by an independent authority.

Now they have started enriching uranium again, so they are theoretically moving closer to building a bomb. To stop that without Iran's co-operation would require force, so if the West finds a bomb unacceptable the West is on a path to war.

For all your criticism of the deal, you haven't addressed the fundamental question of how this situation is better than the deal. Interpreting Iran's provocations as signs of progress towards negotiations is not convincing.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact