Hacker News Reader

Comment by scoofy | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

> 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."

If it holds they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel, which is why Israel will not let it hold. They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now.

> they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel

No, neither Israel nor Iran would be hegemon. (Is there a term for contested hegemony?)

> They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now

When does Israel have to hold eletions?

I warned you specifically that this Iran war was coming and would not end up in Israel’s favor. As I stated “the Iran war is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.” I understand that it is not yet over.

Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza. I see this war as a breakout attempt to fracture Iran into a failed state so that Israel would be the uncontested regional hegemony. Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support. You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it.

> Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support

This is a very Western-centric view. Step outside that gap and you'll find Israel maintains solid ties in the Emirates, India and even in Europe. In any case, on the time horizons you're talking about anything can happen. If someone wants to hold on to random hopes, I'm not going to rain on their parade.

> Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza

This doesn't make sense. Gaza was blockaded. Iran and its proxies have zero ability to blockade Israel. (Hell, Israel has an easy option if they do–bomb Kharg.)

Take Israel's nonsense in Palestinian territories and Iran's penchant for terrorist proxies out of the equation and the Middle East is more or less balanced. (Famous last words.)

> You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it

Israel isn't dumping America. If you're continuing a thread from another time, I was probably arguing that the notion that Israel existentially depends on America is nonsense. Israel depends on America to be a regional hegemon. (Probably.) But it's perfectly capable of turning its military-export machine and gas fields into sources of sovereignty. Anyone who thinks the region is anything less than transactional has emotionally wedded themselves to a cause the world isn't invested in.

We will have to agree to disagree on Israel’s long term viability without the support of the US. Perhaps if Iran was defeated but so far that has not happened.

look again at iran's peace terms - there's nothing in them about destroying israel, and this is Iran shooting its best shot.

Israel might not be able to contjnue with the genocide, expand its borders, or be a hegemon without US support, but the other powers around aren't calling to destory it or using the lack of its destruction as a bargaining chip. Israel's continued existence is pretty secured unless it falls apart from within

This is not peace terms it’s a ceasefire, and most likely it’s not even that. It appears little has changed except Iran can now charge a toll.

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.

> rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway

As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.

They lost some military hardware they couldn't have deployed anyway, they have a bunch of holes in runways that they'll fill within the week. They lost their head of state and a bunch of miscellaneous leaders, but it turns out their chain of command was robust. It's gotten stronger for the stress and unity, not weaker.

No, we have to take the L here. The USA went to war with Iran and got its ass kicked. We achieved nothing useful in the short term, and made things much (much) worse for our interests in the long term.

> As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.

I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days:

"Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions

> threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population

If Trump's tweet meets this bar, it's a meaningless rule. The purpose wasn't to scare civilians. It was to scare Iran's leadership. What it probably wound up doing was scaring American leadership into talking the President down from his ledge.

Cool that's a nice workaround of the Geneva conventions - any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy! The law tends not to be friendly to such workarounds in my experience, especially if it's trivially easy to enact ("be in negotiations"). Or perhaps you can help me understand what distinguishes this situation in the way you suggest.

> any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy

No, I'm saying there is no evidence the threat was made "to spread terror among the civilian population." If the threshold is just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians, then the rule is meaningless. Whether it's done during negotiations is irrelevant.

I don't have a crystal ball into Trump and Hegseth's minds. But I don't get the sense the threats were aimed at the civilian population. Instead, they were aimed at leadership.

Ah. Didn't he threaten to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country? Do you not find this threat credible? I think the US military is capable of it and obviously that's a threat against the lives of civilians. But it's not a war crime if it's "aimed" at the leaders or because Trump generally bloviates something like that? Any explanation I come up with is exactly the kind of legal workaround I'm talking about.

"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will,"

> "just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians"

I think we just may be working with totally different perspectives on this since I'm struggling to see this the same way as you.

He does, he's unhinged and no one from his government / chain of command is willing to stop him.

He doesn't sound dangerous because he's cunning and smart, he's unpredictable because he's demented and his court is fine with it.

Funny how the smart people in the room sometimes turn out to be right.

> hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.

I mean there is no world policeman that’s going to stop Trump. While I agree with you on the practicality of the situation, we have been on tenterhooks all day exactly because Trump can dramatically escalate this if he wants. It’s just that that escalation will be extremely painful in all sorts of ways, especially if Iran wipes out the oil production infrastructure.

My point here isn’t to “pick a side.” I obviously think this whole escapade was unwise. My point is only to point out that the bargaining frictions point to continuing the conflict.

Iran is happier to delay because the oil crisis is about to hit America. Trump is happy to delay because he can always launch a strike tomorrow, and concessions via existing infrastructure breakdown, or improve his position with intelligence, and this may prevent a more serious oil crisis.

That means both parties see opportunity in maintaining the status quo.

> Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position

Iran will get a buttload of cash from China. If we're copying their kit [1] China can one hundredfold. (If Iran can keep playing its role as a heatsink for American weapons, better still.)

[1] https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/iran-war-shah...

> We're increasing tolls on the straight again.

They're increasing tolls on the strait again. This strait isn't particularly straight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com