4 ms·

"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 b

"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?

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
7thpower 6mo ago
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.
eclipticplane 6mo ago
> 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 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    How much did Iran make? There’s plenty of unregulated futures markets for them to make a massive short bet on oil.
- Krssst 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    > 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 6mo ago
      Oil producers that weren't disrupted over the last few weeks.
    - georgemcbay 6mo ago
      > 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 6mo ago
        I think you may be agreeing with my sentiment, though it is hard to tell since your point is entirely orthogonal.
        georgemcbay 6mo ago
        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 6mo ago
      [flagged]
- outside1234 6mo ago
  Are you talking about the Epstein files that he is in?
cjbgkagh 6mo ago
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.
- ajross 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    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 6mo ago
      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 6mo ago
    What if Iran refuses payment in USD? For reparations, tolls, or for future sale of oil?
ajross 6mo ago
> 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 6mo ago
  > 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 6mo ago
    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.
panick21_ 6mo ago
The US got what it actually needed in the Obama area nuclear deal. Trump wont get much more useful stuff.
- overfeed 6mo ago
  > 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.
scoofy 6mo ago
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 https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA
- ajross 6mo ago
  > 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."
  - technothrasher 6mo ago
    > We're increasing tolls on the straight again. They're increasing tolls on the strait again. This strait isn't particularly straight.
  - scoofy 6mo ago
    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.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
Avshalom 6mo ago
No available evidence suggests that Trump and Hegseth don't just like blowing up children.
- tjpnz 6mo ago
  Trump's partial to more than that.
- nickff 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Avshalom 6mo ago
    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.
  - georgemcbay 6mo ago
    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.
  - _moof 6mo ago
    It's possible for both parties in a conflict to be horrible.
chatmasta 6mo ago
What are the chances Claude was used on both sides of this negotiation?
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  This thread is not about Claude or LLMs.
babypuncher 6mo ago
It successfully pushed the Epstein files out of the news cycle for an entire month.
- dboreham 6mo ago
  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.
incompatible 6mo ago
Trump kept his name in the headlines, for a narcissist that's all that matters.
dzonga 6mo ago
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.
bawolff 6mo ago
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.
mcs5280 6mo ago
His insider buddies bought the dip so it's time to pump. It's all about enriching themselves with inside information

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

7thpower 6mo ago

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.

eclipticplane 6mo ago

> 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 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  How much did Iran make? There’s plenty of unregulated futures markets for them to make a massive short bet on oil.
Krssst 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  > 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 6mo ago
    Oil producers that weren't disrupted over the last few weeks.
  - georgemcbay 6mo ago
    > 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 6mo ago
      I think you may be agreeing with my sentiment, though it is hard to tell since your point is entirely orthogonal.
      - georgemcbay 6mo ago
        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 6mo ago
    [flagged]
outside1234 6mo ago
Are you talking about the Epstein files that he is in?

cjbgkagh 6mo ago

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.

ajross 6mo ago
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 6mo ago
  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 6mo ago
    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 6mo ago
  What if Iran refuses payment in USD? For reparations, tolls, or for future sale of oil?

ajross 6mo ago

> 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 6mo ago
> 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 6mo ago
  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.

panick21_ 6mo ago

The US got what it actually needed in the Obama area nuclear deal. Trump wont get much more useful stuff.

overfeed 6mo ago
> 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.

scoofy 6mo ago

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 https://youtu.be/xjKVcl_lDfo?si=NFHvjOdWbLbPOOvA

ajross 6mo ago
> 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."
- technothrasher 6mo ago
  > We're increasing tolls on the straight again. They're increasing tolls on the strait again. This strait isn't particularly straight.
- scoofy 6mo ago
  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.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

Avshalom 6mo ago

No available evidence suggests that Trump and Hegseth don't just like blowing up children.

tjpnz 6mo ago
Trump's partial to more than that.
nickff 6mo ago
[flagged]
- Avshalom 6mo ago
  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.
- georgemcbay 6mo ago
  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.
- _moof 6mo ago
  It's possible for both parties in a conflict to be horrible.

chatmasta 6mo ago

What are the chances Claude was used on both sides of this negotiation?

jacquesm 6mo ago
This thread is not about Claude or LLMs.

babypuncher 6mo ago

It successfully pushed the Epstein files out of the news cycle for an entire month.

dboreham 6mo ago
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.

incompatible 6mo ago

Trump kept his name in the headlines, for a narcissist that's all that matters.

dzonga 6mo ago

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.

bawolff 6mo ago

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.

mcs5280 6mo ago

His insider buddies bought the dip so it's time to pump. It's all about enriching themselves with inside information