14 ms·
New documents link Huawei to suspected front companies in Iran, Syria
- kshatrea 8y agoToo mad to write politely. Because the US is Israel’s bitch the rest of the world must not work with Iran. And because the US hates the ruler of Syria so much it tacitly supported a genuinely Wahhabist terrorist group instead, all other governments must not work with them. When the petrodollar is over and Americans realize they’re less welcome in most places than the plague, maybe then you’ll elect some sane politicians and leave the world alone.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sctb 8y agoIf you can't resist posting this kind of thing, post it somewhere else. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- simplecomplex 8y agoCan someone explain how the world is a better place by outlawing business with Iran? Remember, the crime here is selling telecom equipment...
- duaoebg 8y agoIran and Isreal don’t get along
- lowry 8y agoSo why not punish Israel as well?
- pl1234 8y agobecause they control America and sacrifice the lives of innocent Americans to achieve their own ends
- duaoebg 8y agoI’m not touching that one
- ams6110 8y agoIsrael is much closer to the western point of view on human rights for one thing. It's OK for there to be an objective right and wrong in a conflict.
- tjr225 8y agoAre you claiming that Israel is objectively right in this conflict? If so, can you clarify what you mean by that?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- malvosenior 8y agoMany, many people would see the forced formation of a new country over the top of an existing country, against their will, as objectively wrong.
- ars 8y ago> over the top of an existing country There was no existing country, it was British territory, and Ottoman, and others. The last time the place was an independent country it was part of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, around 2,200 years ago. And now it's an independent Israel again. Same place, same people, same name, same capital. Different laws and government though.
- tareqak 8y ago
- gpm 8y agoThe world is a better [0] place if less people have nuclear weapons. "Outlawing business" (i.e. sanctions) are being used to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Thus it improves the world [1]. [0] Better is somewhat subjective I suppose, but I think we can pretty objectively say "more likely to hold a human civilization 100 years from now". [1] It also undoubtedly makes the world worse in other ways, whether it improves the world more than it makes it worse is too political for me to be interested in discussing it with strangers on the internet.
- koube 8y agoThere's an easier way to do it that required no effort on the part of the current administration, which is to just not cancel the Iran deal. > By torpedoing U.S. adherence to the accord, Trump has all but guaranteed its collapse, a move that opens the door to the unfettered resumption of Iran’s nuclear program and unleashes unpredictable escalatory pressures in an already volatile Middle East. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/around-the-halls-brookings-experts-discuss-the-implications-of-president-trumps-iran-nuclear-deal-announcement/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/a... > Although the deal didn’t address every concern, it was successfully preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Trump has instead opted for an uncertain future, raising the risks of an Iranian bomb and a U.S-Iranian conflict. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-deal-withdrawal-sets-needless-international-crisis https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-dea... > The United States is left without good options moving forward. It is hard to see how this decision serves U.S. interests or regional stability. https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-us-withdrawal-from-the-iran.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-u... In addition I believe there are long term costs for a country to be violating agreements for no discernible benefit.
- rgbrenner 8y agoThe deal with Iran is not relevant.. since Huewai's and Meng's actions are from 5+ years ago, when Iran was subject to UN approved sanctions.
- austinheap 8y agoThe goal of most sanctions, from a diplomatic perspective, is to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question. It's believed that when the "price of onions" becomes too high for a society to tolerate, revolution occurs. I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.
- duaoebg 8y agoSanctions often have the reverse effect by entrenching state power and creating a outside force upon which to blame the problems. I.e. these onions cost a fortune because of the evil Americans. Also the US does not have a great track record with inciting revolutions in Iran.
- mythrwy 8y agoActually the US has a stellar track record of inciting revolutions in Iran. (just not intentionally)
- austinheap 8y agoForeign advisories have all kinds of failed/stupid strategies for inducing revolution! Hasn't stopped America from a never-ending sanction game with Iran or Russia from a never-ending election game with America or China from... the list goes on and on.
- Udik 8y ago> to place enormous financial pressure on an economy so that the population revolts agains the government in question terrorism /ˈtɛrərɪzəm/ noun the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
- rgbrenner 8y agoThe goal of the sanctions is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The sanctions cause economic harm, forcing Iran to the negotiating table. It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).
- wil421 8y agoThe crime is violating sanctions not exactly selling equipment.
- make3 8y agothe goal of sanctions is to place strong pressure on a country that does something we're strongly opposed to (ie try to build nuclear weapons) without having to have a military intervention
- hgq 8y agoOh, what a silly gentile you are. It's better for all of us, and peace! We all want peace, we don't want killed babies and puppies. Don't question it.
- lamarpye 8y agoReplace Iran with South Africa under apartheid and ask the same question.
- stefantalpalaru 8y ago> Replace Iran with South Africa under apartheid and ask the same question. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy&oldid=774864866 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel_and_the_ap...
- briandear 8y agoIf you don’t understand the role of Iran in funding terror groups such as Hezbollah or their long, long history of terror support, notwithstanding their overt threats to “push Israel into the sea,” then explaining how it isn’t just about “selling telecom equipment” isn’t worth the time it would take.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shittyadmin 8y agoWhat a joke, if companies in unrelated countries don't want to play by sanctions, I see no reason to hold it against them. Unrelated states should have no power over this. The amount of hate Huawei gets just for this from otherwise reasonable people is rather excessive.
- lamarpye 8y agoSo a company's business practices should supersede a country's laws. Does this apply to only to sanctions? How about environmental laws?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shittyadmin 8y agoThis isn't a country's laws - Huawei is a Chinese company, it's not Chinese prosecutors going after Huawei. Companies should not be subject to the laws of arbitrary countries. Would you say US copyright laws should be applied globally too?
- austinheap 8y agoCountries that enforce American sanctions do so because they're signatories to various treaties. Similarly, countries that enforce American copyright laws are also signatories. It's opt-in, often under real-or-perceived economic duress, but it's not like it's totally arbitrary.
- shittyadmin 8y agoDoesn't change the fact that it should be up to that country's prosecutors to do the enforcement - not the governments of Canada or the USA. International treaties should not override a country's laws - Canada for example is already in brazen violation of internation drug treaties. If US authorities want them on these charges, they should be presenting legitimate evidence to Chinese prosecutors and arguing over the treaty in question, not playing world police.
- excalibur 8y agoYeah, and ISIS has been fighting with American weapons for years. Hypocrisy much?
- ASalazarMX 8y agoThe stupid part is: Why is Iran forbidden from buying telecommunication equipment? God forbid evil Iranians using using smartphones or the Internet.
- sjg007 8y agoThe embargoes are to force regime change.
- hjhbbuie 8y agoLike the CIA lead coup against the shah? My comment will never be seen.
- dd36 8y agoBecause that is what the sanctions define.
- lamarpye 8y agoThe good people at Huawei would never allow/enable the evil government of Iran to spy on the Iranian people.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- MeltySmelty 8y agoHoly dumb!
- paulmd 8y agoThis is from 5+ years ago, you gotta ask why this is being released now. I can see why it's a bad idea to have Chinese gear in our networks, but this is something completely unrelated except in the vague sense of "china bad". You can argue for getting Huawei out of our networks on their own merit without this crap.
- jpollock 8y agoThis is related to Huawei's CFO's arrest in Canada and pending hearing to decide if she will be extradited to the USA.
- syntaxing 8y agoWarranted or not, sanctions can be seen as one step before war. It's an effective method to hit them where it hurts (their pockets) without creating casualties directly. The whole point of sanctions is to drive the enemies GDP down on purpose to "flex your arms". It does not matter whether the sanctioned goods are dangerous or not. Once again, the ultimate goal is to smother their GDP growth. And like all foreign policy tools, it's meant to be political. The US has laws and I expect our justice department to arrest those who break our laws regardless of their nationality if they step into our country (or allies). Just like how the Chinese would arrest any US citizen if we break their laws when we step into their country. The WTO submitted a report last year about the efficacy of sanctions (and it happens to be on Iran) for those curious [1]. [1] https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201803_e.pdf https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201803_e.pdf
- rgbrenner 8y agoImportant point, these were UN sanctions that Huawei was violating. That means China also agreed to them.. and not in some minor vote... they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and therefore have a veto they could have used to reject it entirely... and they don't need anyones permission to use their veto. So it's safe to say China also agreed to sanction Iran, which they failed to do.
- gcbw2 8y agoDoesn't to appear to be a U.N. sanction, maybe it is indeed "only" a US sanction. the last UN resolution lifts all sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolut... > United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 - Passed 20 July 2015. Endorsed the Iran Nuclear Deal and lifted all previous sanctions on Iran provided that Iran remains in compliance with its responsibilities in the nuclear deal. (just went to wikipedia now, not an authority on the subject)
- free652 8y agoThere were breaking UN sanctions when they were in place.
- jessaustin 8y agoGood job, warmongers. You've convinced me to buy Huawei. Maybe I can't do anything to encourage our politicians and media to seek peace and prosperity rather than war and kickbacks from armaments lobbyists. However, I can spend $229 on a mobile phone that definitely doesn't have an FBI backdoor installed at the factory. Maybe that's enough for now?