11 ms·

"People are dying due to absence of medicines. People are starving. The economy system is falling apart and the politicians and their children are all abroad! N

"People are dying due to absence of medicines. People are starving. The economy system is falling apart and the politicians and their children are all abroad! None of them have any sense about what is going on the streets." That is not what we (the West) are hearing in mainstream media. Edit: I may well be wrong on this as others have pointed out.

m0zg 7y ago
That's kind of by design. What other effect do you think the total economic embargo would have? It's not like they're some super advanced country that's independent of anybody else for tech. Good (for the US) news is, it's working. They're getting ready to negotiate, hence the UK tanker intercepts etc. Weak negotiating position, need bargaining chips. I kind of agree with Lindsey Graham: if you just want nuclear power, there's no need whatsoever to enrich your own uranium. You can buy fuel for reactors from the enriching nations, no problem. I'm sure, given the situation, you could even negotiate the price down to nearly nothing, as well.
- h0l0cube 7y ago
  > it's working The last deal for de-nuclearization already worked, but it was inexplicably terminated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
  - m0zg 7y ago
    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.
    - nutjob2 7y ago
      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.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        >> It's the best deal _they_ could negotiate Exactly my point. Doesn't mean it's a good deal.
        nutjob2 7y ago
        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.
        m0zg 7y ago
        > 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.
        nutjob2 7y ago
        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.
    - RidingPegasus 7y ago
      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. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kim-jong-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kim-jong-trum...
      - ars 7y ago
        > 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-text.html 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".
        h0l0cube 7y ago
        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.
        ars 7y ago
        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.
      - mrdodge 7y ago
        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.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    Explications: supporting war in Yemen, Al Assad, Hezbollah, etc.
    - pm90 7y ago
      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.
    - h0l0cube 7y ago
      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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Political_influences_and_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
- skybrian 7y ago
  Well, it's sort of good news in the sense that, if the U.S. chose to negotiate, Iran still wants a deal, and we might end up with the same deal as before? Or in other words, this was all unnecessary, but some of the damage caused by abandoning a done deal might be reversible.
  - kaveh_h 7y ago
    No deal will be made unless perhaps if Trump wins a second term. One year with sanctions is not something new. As long as Iran have it’s energy supply secured.
- cannabis_sam 7y ago
  >They're getting ready to negotiate, hence the UK tanker intercepts etc. Weak negotiating position, need bargaining chips. You do realize that the UK grabbed a tanker first?
NikolaeVarius 7y ago
I dont understand this type of reply where just because a specific subtopic of a news story isnt being screamed just as loudly as every other top breaking headline, its the western media being silent on the issue. Plenty of discussion has been had on mainstream media about the effects and.effectiveness of sanctions on basic goods https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-sanctions-hit-iran-residents-complain-medicine-shortages/story?id=63930442 https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-sanctions-hit-iran-r... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/inflation-rampant-in-tehran-as-iran-struggles-to-stem-rising-food-prices.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/inflation-rampant-in-tehran-...? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-trumps-cruel-substitute-for-an-actual-iran-policy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-t... https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-trumps-cruel-substitute-for-an-actual-iran-policy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-t...
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  Needle in a haystack. Today's articles for me: * Heat wave relief in sight after scorching temps... * Disney star Cameron Boyce's mother breaks silence... * 'You're breathtaking' Keanu Reeves pulls another classic Keanu... * Thousands of bones discovered in Vatican crypt... * Miss Michigan winner tweets... * National Ice Cream Day means free cones. Here's what to know... * The Horrors of Jeffrey Epstein's Private Island * The 1 Reason you shouldn't save for retirement Today's body count for the MI-complex never seems to make the cut.
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > Needle in a haystack As a practical matter, Tehran’s domestic governance is irrelevant to most Western readers. My FT, WSJ or Bloomberg subscriptions tend to touch on it about twice a year. Given I have zero influence over the situation, that plenty for me.
    - jstewartmobile 7y ago
      Japanese tanker incident and a close-call expanding our middle-east misadventures just a few weeks ago, and free ice cream cones are still more relevant...
oh_sigh 7y ago
Can American reporters even go on the ground in Iran without a government chaperone?

m0zg 7y ago

That's kind of by design. What other effect do you think the total economic embargo would have? It's not like they're some super advanced country that's independent of anybody else for tech. Good (for the US) news is, it's working. They're getting ready to negotiate, hence the UK tanker intercepts etc. Weak negotiating position, need bargaining chips. I kind of agree with Lindsey Graham: if you just want nuclear power, there's no need whatsoever to enrich your own uranium. You can buy fuel for reactors from the enriching nations, no problem. I'm sure, given the situation, you could even negotiate the price down to nearly nothing, as well.

h0l0cube 7y ago
> it's working The last deal for de-nuclearization already worked, but it was inexplicably terminated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
- m0zg 7y ago
  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.
  - nutjob2 7y ago
    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.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      >> It's the best deal _they_ could negotiate Exactly my point. Doesn't mean it's a good deal.
      - nutjob2 7y ago
        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.
        m0zg 7y ago
        > 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.
        nutjob2 7y ago
        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.
  - RidingPegasus 7y ago
    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. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kim-jong-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/29/us/politics/kim-jong-trum...
    - ars 7y ago
      > 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-text.html 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".
      - h0l0cube 7y ago
        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.
        ars 7y ago
        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.
    - mrdodge 7y ago
      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.
- cm2187 7y ago
  Explications: supporting war in Yemen, Al Assad, Hezbollah, etc.
  - pm90 7y ago
    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.
  - h0l0cube 7y ago
    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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Political_influences_and_decisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
skybrian 7y ago
Well, it's sort of good news in the sense that, if the U.S. chose to negotiate, Iran still wants a deal, and we might end up with the same deal as before? Or in other words, this was all unnecessary, but some of the damage caused by abandoning a done deal might be reversible.
- kaveh_h 7y ago
  No deal will be made unless perhaps if Trump wins a second term. One year with sanctions is not something new. As long as Iran have it’s energy supply secured.
cannabis_sam 7y ago
>They're getting ready to negotiate, hence the UK tanker intercepts etc. Weak negotiating position, need bargaining chips. You do realize that the UK grabbed a tanker first?

NikolaeVarius 7y ago

I dont understand this type of reply where just because a specific subtopic of a news story isnt being screamed just as loudly as every other top breaking headline, its the western media being silent on the issue. Plenty of discussion has been had on mainstream media about the effects and.effectiveness of sanctions on basic goods https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-sanctions-hit-iran-residents-complain-medicine-shortages/story?id=63930442 https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-sanctions-hit-iran-r... https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/inflation-rampant-in-tehran-as-iran-struggles-to-stem-rising-food-prices.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/inflation-rampant-in-tehran-...? https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-trumps-cruel-substitute-for-an-actual-iran-policy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-t... https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-trumps-cruel-substitute-for-an-actual-iran-policy/ https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sanctions-t...

jstewartmobile 7y ago
Needle in a haystack. Today's articles for me: * Heat wave relief in sight after scorching temps... * Disney star Cameron Boyce's mother breaks silence... * 'You're breathtaking' Keanu Reeves pulls another classic Keanu... * Thousands of bones discovered in Vatican crypt... * Miss Michigan winner tweets... * National Ice Cream Day means free cones. Here's what to know... * The Horrors of Jeffrey Epstein's Private Island * The 1 Reason you shouldn't save for retirement Today's body count for the MI-complex never seems to make the cut.
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > Needle in a haystack As a practical matter, Tehran’s domestic governance is irrelevant to most Western readers. My FT, WSJ or Bloomberg subscriptions tend to touch on it about twice a year. Given I have zero influence over the situation, that plenty for me.
  - jstewartmobile 7y ago
    Japanese tanker incident and a close-call expanding our middle-east misadventures just a few weeks ago, and free ice cream cones are still more relevant...

oh_sigh 7y ago

Can American reporters even go on the ground in Iran without a government chaperone?