Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnordpiglet | Hacker News Reader

My guess is it’s a chance to restock and reposition air defense as the slow attrition of interceptors was starting to open holes in the air defense. This administration has used negotiations as a diversion for further attacks on Iran and I suspect this is no different. I also suspect the Iranians know this and are likewise doing their best to prepare for them to fail.

View on HN

That's true of pretty much every ceasefire ever, and both sides are almost certainly taking advantage of the ceasefire to do that.

Even ceasefires entered in good faith often collapse so countries always try and reposition stuff during the ceasefire for when/if that happens.

This is not true. The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy, only continuation of the atrocities. This is not a ceasefire entered in bad faith, it is simply a strategic usage of one of the few tools that can end a war, and in my opinion morally abhorrent.

Gaza and Lebanon were not part of the cease fire agreement. Besides, After the first round of hostilities the ceasefire agreement reached between Israel and Lebanon included the disarmament of Hezbullah, and sending the Lebanese army to take the south under control. None of which was done, so Israel had to do it by itself

Like you I do not have a direct line with the diplomats of the involved countries, but every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement.

What Israel is doing by itself is occupying more land and vilifying the concept of humanity, not "taking the south under control". Let me remind you that Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

The whole source of pain, misery and instability in the region is the colony of Israel, that was place there by the brits.

> every major news outlet was including Lebanon in the agreement

Israel never said anything about having accepted an agreement, and in fact stated the opposite. The Pakistani mediator can't just declare Israel part of an agreement without its, well, agreement.

> Hezbollah has founded as a direct reply to the '82 invasion of Lebanon by Israel

Which was a rather necessary response to the PLO attacking Israel from Lebanon. Or what would you have expected Israel to do instead?

> With the greatest humility, I am pleased to announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, along with their allies, have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

PM of Pakistan announced without a doubt after the agreement that Lebanon "and elsewhere" were included.

"Western" media seemed to gloss over this "small detail".

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/pakistan-pm-shehbaz-shar...

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/4/8/how-pakistan-man...

Israel hadn't agreed to anything yet though. There was apparently some confusion in the Pakistani mediation. Vance called it a "legitimate misunderstanding".

Right, because Vance is a liar, happily lying on behalf of his boss

Maybe, doing the actual negotiations, not just reporting on it from a known position

> The violations of ceasefires by Israel in Gaza and Lebanon were a clear indication that there was no desire for diplomacy

Israel has pretty consistently claimed they never agreed to a ceasefire in lebanon (and nobody is claiming this ceasefire changed anything in Gaza). Iran seemed to only claim the ceasefire included lebanon later on and not initially (afaict, not 100% sure). Honestly it makes one wonder if the terms were even written down. Seems like an easy solution to this problem would be to just publicly release the ceasefire agreement document.

I am talking about the previous ones. For the current one, it is clear that Israel is trying to force the deal to go south by continuing to bomb civilians in Lebanon, because it does not want the war to end.

Supposedly Israel agreed to a ceasefire in Gaza ages ago, they just violated it minutes after signing it, and never stopped from there.

Iran absolutely demanded a ceasefire in Lebanon from the beginning. It was the US that lied and said otherwise.

Pakistan, who worked with everyone to create the ceasefire, stated that Lebanon was included.

I think it's less about restocking and repositioning air defenses. The expensive weapons systems the US and its allies are running short on can't be replenished in weeks or even months. I think this was more about buying time to prepare for a ground war and probably to try to come up with some semblance of a strategy.

It also served as a useful way for Trump to throw Vance under the bus. If the negotiations were serious and in good faith, I think you would have seen Rubio there. Instead, you had Rubio sitting ringside at a UFC fight while the talks collapsed.

As I understand it Iran requested that Vance conduct the negotiations.[0] The speculation is that they did so in order to tarnish his image in the American people by attaching his name and face to the conflict which is something he appears to have been desperate to avoid.

If this is the case it seems like an extremely effective way to kneecap the eventual successor to a very unhealthy 79 year old man who may die in office.

One would hope that even tangential involvement in this war would be the kiss of death for any political career in the US but it's hard to say. The American electorate is a fickle creature. It always finds new ways to surprise and disappoint.

[0] https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-wanted-negotiate-vance-got-17...

Silver linings if Iran does in Trump, erases Vance's chance, and gets oil to $200 so people will finally start to feel pain for continuing to burn fossil fuels.

More likely they chose Vance because he is one the few people at the top of the administration who doesn’t have very close ties with Israel.

One thing that's repeatedly impressed me throughout the war is how effectively the Iranians have been able to tailor their PR and diplomatic strategies based on their deep understanding of American domestic politics and the West in general. I had always assumed that the Iranian leadership would have a closed-off and insular mindset, but many of them are highly educated and have spent years studying the West and Western diplomacy, have studied at Western universities, or otherwise spent long periods in the West. A few examples:

- Iran's foreign minister has a Ph.D in political thought from the University of Kent

- Iran's deputy foreign minister has a BS and MS in civil engineering from the University of Kansas, an MA in international political economy and development from Fordham University, and a Ph.D in political science from the University of Bern

- One of the main advisors to Iran's negotiating team grew up in Richmond, VA, has a Ph.D in English literature from the University of Birmingham, and is the former head of the North American Studies graduate program at the University of Tehran

I bet that there are people in the US defense department or intelligence community who have a similarly deep understanding of Iranian domestic politics, but I doubt that anyone in the US negotiating team or the current US political leadership in general really cares to hear what they have to say.

It's frustrating how genuinely effective Iran's management of the information war has been. This, the Lego things, the front-running of TACO moments. They understand the White House decision-making process better than the White House does[1].

And let's be clear: that's very bad. Iran is a bad actor. Iran does bad things and an empowered Iran is a disaster for the region. Yet Iran is able to keep goading Trump into making everything worse.

[1] Because obviously the WH doesn't have a clue what's in the president's head. He announced a blockade this morning, seemingly, literally because he read it in some pundit article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com