Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodruffw | Hacker News Reader

Are the terms of the deal public yet? If they're essentially a return to the status quo ante bellum, that would be a pretty embarrassing conclusion for the US (and would presumably further harden any belief within Iran that the only permanent regime-preserving solution involves accelerating the process of obtaining nuclear weapons).

View on HN

From Al Jazeera:

>According to remarks carried by the Tasnim news agency, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said negotiations for a final deal will be held during a 60-day period, after verifying that the US implemented its commitments under the deal, including ending hostilities, lifting the blockade, and releasing frozen assets.

So, it's an even worse position for the US than before launching the war.

Didn’t Iran consider their previous US negotiations a sham? Why would they believe them this time? Feels like the US wants to approach them with these deals, reneg, and once Iran is like we don’t want anymore deals, then the US can point to them and be like, see they don’t want peace.

Iran was fully abiding by the JCPOA (Obama Iran deal) until Trump pulled out in his first term. Trump hates Obama so that was entirely out of spite.

What is surprising is how co-opted the Biden admin was by Israel, that they didn't even bother to even consider reentering it despite it being a Democratic party "win" when it was first announced.

Except Biden did try to restart the talks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_rel...

Why would Iran take that at that point? There's no trust.

I didn't say they would, just refuting the claim that:

> What is surprising is how co-opted the Biden admin was by Israel, that they didn't even bother to even consider reentering it

No, they tried to negotiate a new deal, not go back to the one they had agreed to. Why would Iran trust any new negotiations?

Iran was naive enough to trust the US twice in the last year and HAD THEIR NEGOTIATING TEAM BOMBED! I'm shocked they even trust the US to hold up to the deal they signed today. I'm guessing US concessions on frozen assets was just too much to pass up.

They were working for that agreement. trump canceled it, not they.

For one thing, the US has agreed to give Iran $12 billion of their frozen assets before negotiations start, and another $12 billion during the 60 day negotiation period. When you repeatedly bomb the other side while prior negotiations were ongoing, before having to conclude that a negotiated settlement is the only way out of this, you have to make big concessions to even get the other side to the negotiating table.

> So, it's an even worse position for the US than before launching the war.

True but continuing the war is worse for Trump. There was no real way to win.

Yes, the war was an obvious strategic blunder and (more importantly) an immoral and unjust invasion that should never have happened.

Not to play?

Yup. Netanyahu tried to get most presidents in the last set to attack Iran and they were smart enough not to.

There is no way Iran didn't gain on this, US would be lucky to hit status quo. The clown in chief is a moron and they know it and will exploit it.

The conclusion has long been embarassing unless we live under a rock.

The US president has been played like a fool by the Israelis and Iran has inflicted a humiliating defeat to the US and its allies by leveraging cheap asymmetric warfare.

I think this war's first phase was clearly in Israel's favor, insofar as Israel's strategic goal is neutralizing Iran as a peer adversary. But the latter phases have not really gone how they (= Netanyahu) want/s; the ideal end state for Israel is an enormous civilian infrastructure cost to Iran that would subtract from military budgeting, but that isn't what the deal suggests.

(Intentionally targeting civilian infrastructure is, of course, a war crime.)

Israel seems to have also lost out because any further war crimes they commit will get Trump angry, he's desperate to keep Iran from returning fire and further wrecking his midterms.

But heck, if I were Iran I'd be wary after November. With Russia-style election rigging and spineless congress, Trump-Hegseth might resume the war crimes...

> the US and its allies

Which allies?

Those in the middle east.

Depends who you ask, I think.

It looks like it is more an MoU than a deal, and I think that allows Trump the cover to drip feed out how humiliating it is, because this isn't the kind of band-aid you rip off all at once.

If I were a betting man I would bet that between now and Friday there will be too much news coverage of just how humiliating this is for the USA, how bad a deal it is, and how much of failure it is, and Trump himself will pull out of the deal. This has, allegedly, happened at least once.

But Iran now seem to be a bit better schooled in how to actually get him to agree, so perhaps they will be persuaded to smile a shit-eating grin while he takes a victory lap, and simply keep the most humiliating details of it under wraps until he signs.

How long it is before Trump claims to renegotiate it, who knows. Just the other day Trump said he might not renew USMCA — his own prior great achievement of loudly renegotiating NAFTA to be not significantly worse.

I can see the logic in what you’re saying, but Iran state media is reporting the deal includes “The US and its allies delivering reconstruction plans for Iran worth at least $300bn” (in addition to the $25B) but I don’t understand their use of the word “plan”? https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cj0grpyg4v1t?post=asset%3A1793...

That has been kicking around in the deal discussions since the end of May, yeah. Nothing much about this MoU seems to have really changed since then:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/emerging-us-ira...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/iran-could-rece...

Two diplomats briefed on the latest draft called it “an international ‘investment fund,’ which the United States would help facilitate in the event of a final deal,” and plans for which would be discussed during the initial 60-day negotiations period that the memorandum would kick off, the report says.

It appears to concern the authorisation of a sort of Marshall Plan inward investment fund that may end up holding that sort of amount of cash that the US effectively agrees to facilitate and allow.

But I guess a key thing is that it involves is the USA agreeing not to seize it. It would also implicitly allow businesses to do the reconstruction work without being sanctioned.

It's much worse than that. This gives Iran de jure control of traffic in the strait.

“Art of the deal.” Thousands of deaths and tens to hundreds of billions of dollars borrowed and spent to be in a worse position than before this started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2026_Iran_wa...

https://iran-cost-ticker.com/

How so? Trump Claims Strait Will be ‘Permanently Toll Free’ Under Agreement With Iran (NYT headline).

If I understand 'jeffbee correctly, I think they mean that Iran now has practical evidence that it can gum up the strait and therefore extract political concessions from it, even if they don't literally result in tolling.

(In other words, every barrel of oil that passes through the straight will now have an $X risk surcharge on it, whether or not that surcharge ends up in Iran's coffers.)

Iranians have said they cannot charge a "toll" according to international law, but they can charge a "fee". Charging a fee for maintanance, environment or security is fine, so it will be just a different branding to the "toll". Personally I think they should charge an environmental fee with the amount of traffic going through there.

https://www.dawn.com/news/2007544/cannot-impose-tolls-on-str...

They will never charge such a fee, they will however charge a fee and name it "environmental fee".

The persistent rumour about this deal process is that Iran will charge "environmental fees".

Trump also said he would refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "right to the top" in 6 weeks and, instead, emptied it to its lowest level ever. He also said foreign investment in the United States would rise to 22 trillion dollars, but instead total foreign investment weakened to below $300 billion in 2025. Oh, and he also said tariffs were cutting the deficit by 25%, while he instead managed the deficit to a slightly higher level, even before counting the Iran War.

If NYT's source is his tweet[1], he "authorize[s] the toll free opening of the strait", not claiming Iran agreed to it.

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/trumptweets/comments/1u5xpoe/061426...

iran has defacto control over traffic in the strait. what changes?

A toll booth.

There have been persistent rumours that Iran will be allowed to charge new "environmental fees" for access, "to protect the ecosystem of the Strait" or somesuch.

(Secretary of War and former Fox News weekend anchor Pete Hegseth was on the news just this evening saying that the USA has been in control of the Strait the whole time, so I think the USA is arguing against your (correct) characterisation of the situation.)

>(Secretary of War and former Fox News weekend anchor Pete Hegseth was on the news just this evening saying that the USA has been in control of the Strait the whole time, so I think the USA is arguing against your (correct) characterisation of the situation.)

Essentially, the USA has indeed been the one keeping the straight closed. They wanted oil going to China stopped. That was the reason the Navy was there.

The commencement, duration and conclusion are all embarrassing for the US because the entire country is run by b list right wing media bros

Iran had already passed the IAEA red-line of enriching uranium to 60%. They had already accomplished virtually all the hard parts of building a bomb.

https://fordow.net/blog/posts/enriched-uranium-proliferation...

Is a good explainer about uranium enrichment.

> The most alarming aspect of 60% enrichment is how close it brings a country to weapons-grade material 4344. The enrichment work required to move from 60% to 90% is substantially less than the work needed to reach 60% from natural uranium 4546. This means a country with 60% enriched uranium stockpiles could potentially produce weapons-grade material in a matter of weeks or even days.

You left out the part that they went past the 3.5% after Trump pulled out of the deal. While they were in it, they were complying fully as per IAEA and the US State department themselves.

I didn't leave out anything. I was making a factual statement that the Iranian nuclear program had already been "accelerated" to a point where objectively, with the engineering expertise they doubtlessly have, they could have potentially built a bomb within weeks or months, as the most difficult and time-consuming part was already done, which is why nonproliferation proponents get so upset about that level of enrichment.

Whether this is Trump's or Biden's or Joe Rogan's or a space alien's fault is for other commenters to discuss. I do not find the politics interesting. Nuclear science is interesting.

This would be a lot more concerning if it wasn't widely known that Israel also illegally holds nuclear weapons of its own and therefore should have been sanctioned by the US for decades. Not having nukes is how Iran got here in the first place - the POTUS unilaterally withdrawing from their agreement and bombing them in the middle of negotiations. For all the portrayals of the Iranian government as "lunatics" over the years, getting to nuclear ASAP is the only logical move for a country in Iran's position - just look at how the US went back on its sabre rattling against North Korea once they demonstrated nuclear capabilities.

You don't have to think the Iranian government is in any way "good" but there's literally no logical reason for them not to desperately try to get their hands on nuclear weapons at this point. They have no reason to trust the West to ever follow through on any promises again.

I think this is true for any country. If you are willing to take the risks that come with looking like you're building a bomb, you're obviously much better off once you have them. I personally don't think nonproliferation was ever in the long run a lasting result; it could only ever work as long as most countries are satisfied with being client states.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com