I think that’s easy to say with the benefit of hindsight, but it seems to me that if the Iranians actually claimed they were 11 days away from a nuclear bomb during the prewar negotiations, it’s likely that the blockade first would not have been the right leading move.
Plus I believe that if you took the “11 days away” claim off the table I don’t think you accurately say that a blockade without the military campaign first would have been successful. Seems like we are in a “what came first the chicken or the egg” moment.
There is no doubt in my mind that a blockade with an intact Iranian navy would not necessarily look like this one.
> if the Iranians actually claimed they were 11 days away from a nuclear bomb during the prewar negotiations
Do you want to cite a good source for this? I think you're confusing having enough 60% enriched uranium for "11 bombs" with "11 days." If Iran was 11 days away then what was the point of the 12-day war last year? The first step would be not blatantly lying to the public
There's way more evidence that iran wasn't building a nuke than that they were:
Gabbard Says Iran Did Not Rebuild Nuclear Program After 2025 Strikes, Contradicting Trump (March 19, 2026)
Like i said, that is what the administration (Witkoff) communicated. You can believe it or not, dispute it all you want, but the only opinion of any importance here is if they (either Iran, the administration, and frankly also Israel) believed it. In that case, it would be a dangerous thing for the US and Israel to ignore. Some would suggest impossible to ignore.
In my opinion if it’s not true and Iran communicated it…that would be a huge miscalculation by Iran.
But what evidence do you have that none believed it? Sounds more like a subjective opinion rather than an objective one.
While I am not big on trust either, I am perplexed why “successful” negotiations would all of a sudden turn on a dime into a regional military event without a major catalyst— especially this close to midterms. This action was not politically helpful to Trump, was risky with his base, yet he did it anyway.
> I am perplexed why “successful” negotiations would all of a sudden turn on a dime into a regional military event without a major catalyst
It can make a lot of sense when you understand the people involved are deeply incompetent, aggressively overconfident, and are surrounded by religious extremists saying this needs to be done for Jesus to come back.
I mean, after all, we bombed them months ago and nothing happened. We just nabbed another head of state with zero issues. Nothing bad is going to happen, we've got this! We'll just breeze in and crush them in a few days. Which we did, mission success, that's why we're all finished already, right?
> It can make a lot of sense when you understand the people involved are deeply incompetent, aggressively overconfident, and are surrounded by religious extremists saying this needs to be done for Jesus to come back.
It was literally only until the last 5 words that I realized you were not talking about Iran. Funny how you ignore their part in all this.
However, I do want to take issue with the idea of “deeply incompetent”. That doesn't fit. They are either extremely competent at implementing their political agenda, or extremely lucky. Additionally this whole situation is contrary to the Trump administration’s normal playbook. If anything is consistent about Trump is that he panders to his base. This was the exact opposite. Why the change?
Thats the problem with assuming that this is Trump business as usual, its not…which is why I feel that there is a catalyst to go off their normal playbook.
> They are either extremely competent at implementing their political agenda, or extremely lucky
Or extremely corrupt and down to take hundreds of millions (billions?) by foreign puppet masters who help them win elections. Maybe competent at exerting their will over people with less power than them and playing up people's hatreds for influence, but other than that I don't really see competence.
How does Witkoff have so much money again? Oh that's right, he's bought and paid for by Qataris.
Under what credentials was Witkoff selected for his role? Clearly he's someone with a deep history of geopolitics right? Maybe some war tactician? Someone with history studying how non-proliferation treaties work, or really any kind of understanding about how uranium enrichment works? If not any of that does he at least speak the language or understand the cultures of the Iranians? Oh that's right, he's just buddy-buddy with the President through running in the same real-estate circles. Sure seems like the competent choice for leading such negotiations.
Even Trump's selection of who to lead negotiations is an obvious example of the extreme incompetence and flagrant corruption of which this whole thing has been executed.
> If anything is consistent about Trump is that he panders to his base
Just like how he's released the Epstein files as promised or built the wall and had Mexico pay for it right? He does whatever he wants and his base just retcons and goes with it.
If you’re just gonna regurgitate all the same overused critiques that have been said about literally every Trump administration member and their suitability for their jobs since his first term we can just end this here. I prefer serious critical thinking in discussions, not having to read tired talking points that I have seen a thousand times on here and elsewhere.
I’m not a Trump supporter but I am exhausted watching other people who don’t support him provide such lazy arguments.
Imagine having such extreme and blatant in your face corruption taking place and yet people see it as just blasé talking points not worth discussing.
It's useful continuing to point out the extreme corruption taking place right in front of us, especially when the topic is if they're competent or not. You're saying they're clearly competent, and yet the people involved hold zero credentials to do the job they're there for.
What about any of this has shown competence to you?
> such lazy arguments.
It's sad to see so many fellow citizens just not care about the extreme corruption and just excuse it. Wake up.
The arguments only seem lazy because they're obvious truths. There's nothing left to debate, they just are. The only question is, do you care about the extreme corruption leading to this absolute shitshow or do you just continue to excuse it?
Witkoff and Kushner are by far extremely poor choices to choose if you want competent people in there. There are probably thousands of people far more qualified to be there. Why do you think they were chosen, if not corruption and nepotism?
> overused critiques that have been said about literally every Trump administration member
They are and were true about literally every Trump administration member. Trump does not tolerate competent people well, he requires loyalty and puts people through loyalty tests. Trump also prefers corrupt people - they are like him and understand each other. All of that appeals to sizable portion of electorate. They also enjoy watching the cruelty, as a bonus.
Trump is good at bullying. You do not need to be competent negotiator or understand nuclear issues to be rich. Especially in an environment Witkoff and Kushner are from - all you need there is bullying and money. (But also, Trump inherited his money and proceeded to fail his business ventures literally whole his life.).
> But what evidence do you have that none believed it? Sounds more like a subjective opinion rather than an objective one.
Both their subsequent behavior and their other statements.
> I am perplexed why “successful” negotiations would all of a sudden turn on a dime into a regional military event without a major catalyst
America and Israel wanted that war regardless of outcome of the negotiations. Iranians making concessions was going against actual goals of these two countries. Israel is actively sabotaging ceasefires and trying to enlarge their territory. American administration simply finds wars cool.
Also, by all reports, Witkoff and Kushner dont know much about nuclear. They are, basically, incompetent. They did not understood the things being give up. And before you call that false accusation, Russia complained about them not understanding their position too - and that is despite Witkoff and Kushner being on Russia side. They are able to bully their way to get some stuff they want - that works with some targets (Venezuela) and did not worked here nor in Ukraine.
> especially this close to midterms. This action was not politically helpful to Trump, was risky with his base, yet he did it anyway.
Majority of republicans support this war. And no one else matter to Trump. Hegseth, Trump and company were proud of starting this war. In their minds, it made them feel and look powerful, manly and strong. Republicans also think it makes them strong and manly.
Trump already made Venezuela into vassal dictatorship, threatened Greenland, threatened Canada, plans to attack Cuba is bombing fisherman boats and murdering sailors, builds concentration camps, supports Russian invasion, supported Orban ... it is all perfectly consistent.
Edit: And if you read or listen conservative analysists from defense background, their idea of ceasefire was "oh, well, we will continue bombing every few months". The war and bombing as something normal other countries are just assumed to accept as just a no big deal thing America does is fairly common ideology among them.
Are you suggesting there can be no difference between public rhetoric, the truth, and what might be said behind the closed doors of a diplomatic negotiation between adversaries? Especially with Trump?
Which, again, has zero to do with my initial post. Again, the point was that we cant assume a blockade without the initial military operation would have been successful. And it’s a moot point anyway because only one of those three parties needed to believe that Iran was that close to having a nuclear device for a military operation to have taken place. Your opinion (or anyone else’s) of the trustworthiness of the Trump administration has zero bearing on whether or not they could or would launch a military operation. They obviously did.
But you're basing your information off of the things people who are known to lie to you are saying. You're building your house of logic on quicksand.
I'm arguing you can't trust what they say about what was said at these meetings, because they've shown they can't be trusted to tell the truth at any time. Bessent says they said that, but you can't trust him. He's a liar. This is the problem when you have an administration that lies all the time even about little things. You can't even begin to actually trust the big things.
I get it, you don't trust them. I am skeptical of the motives of all governments regardless of who sits in power. Frankly, none are truly benevolent or honest as far as I am concerned.
But that is a whole separate topic from speaking to the hypothetical “we should have tried a blockade first”. Whether you believe the justification or not there is a honesty to the timing, immediacy, and level of violence of the action here. When you couple that with some indisputable facts here—we know that for nearly five decades Iran has advocated genocide on Israel and the US as a matter of their state policy. We know that they have repeatedly acted when they could to this end. We know they were seeking nuclear weapons. We know that active diplomacy was going on and then it turned on a dime suddenly to military action.
It seems to me that the level of military violence inflicted on Iran with such a short switch from diplomatic talks was consistent with the belief by someone that they were danger close to having a nuclear weapon. You can be dishonest and corrupt, but still see and act on immediate threats.
> It still boggles my mind that Trump was even allowed to run for president again
He was at least 35, a natural born citizen of the US, had residency for at least 14 years prior to his candidacy, only served a single term prior, and was never charged and convicted with insurrection.
Of course he was allowed, he met all the constitutional criteria to serve.
They did, it was a great piece of legislation. And you might note that they said that a state can't disqualify a candidate, not that they erred in a judgment that refutes your claim.
“A group of Colorado voters contends that Section 3 of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits for-
mer President Donald J. Trump, who seeks the Presidential
nomination of the Republican Party in this year’s election,
from becoming President again. The Colorado Supreme
Court agreed with that contention. It ordered the Colorado
secretary of state to exclude the former President from the
Republican primary ballot in the State and to disregard any
write-in votes that Colorado voters might cast for him.
Former President Trump challenges that decision on sev-
eral grounds. Because the Constitution makes Congress,
rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3
against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.”
At what point was Trump “charged and convicted” because that is what I wrote. Obviously it doesn’t matter what a “group of Colorado voters contends” or that “the Colorado supreme court agreed”, it didn't meet the limitations imposed by section 3 of the 14th, because they cant, only congress can using section 5.
> At what point was Trump “charged and convicted” because that is what I wrote.
You wrote other words too. I assume your assertion was that he was not legally excluded from the presidential ballot for insurrection. Colorado found otherwise.
> it doesn’t matter what a “group of Colorado voters contends” or that “the Colorado supreme court agreed”
Once again, "Colorado begs to differ". They found that he participated in an insurrection and, to be entirely honest, I trust them more than you.
Scotus isn't on your side here, they just said states can't disqualify federal candidates.
I don’t have a “side”. I said Trump was qualified to run for president because he satisfied all the qualification boxes—-if you dispute that, make your case. Colorado attempted to make their case and lost. He age qualifies, he citizenship qualifies, his residency qualifies, and he didn’t violate the 14th.
So I am not sure exactly what point you are trying to make. Frankly, there doesn’t seem to be one beyond just arguing a failed point.
I think you mean "he hasn't been found to have violated the 14th", we all witnessed the insurrection. And even that would be an inaccurate statement on your part, he was found to have violated the 14th by Colorado. Scotus did not vacate this finding.
> This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office.
You keep trying to use Trump's ability to run for federal office as some backwards way to claim he was neither the participant in an insurrection nor found legally to have been one.
He was, you're absolutely right! You're welcome to claim the Colorado finding is meaningless because of the scotus decision, just don't use it to fabricate a different set of facts.
Care to explain how it had any actual bearing on Trumps ability to run for president? How about how it changes my point that he was qualified, ran, was elected, and still holds the office? He was on the Colorado ballot, he received over 1.377M votes from folks in Colorado. You keep pointing to it as meaningful and how it somehow disproves my point that he was qualified to run for the office (and won and now holds the office) but where was this case’s impact on the result?
Apparently whatever nuanced point you think you are making, reality seems to disagree with you.
> Viruses and bacteria can in fact be both extremely, extremely contagious and extremely, extremely lethal.
Sure, but those two things would tend to work against it becoming a pandemic— unless it managed those two things but also kept its host healthy enough for long enough before becoming lethal to adequately spread it.
I looked into this once, it depends on how splashy the death is. A virus that made people explode instantly into a fine mist of airborne virus particles could be perfectly adequate for a pandemic (although holding off until help arrives might work even better).
I think we can safely assume that OP was picking a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical example to make a point that it’s possible for something to be deadly and transmissible, although in nature Baculovirus in Caterpillars has a similar mechanism (encourages their host to eat a lot, then climb to the top of a plant so when it turns to ooze it infects others) or cordyceps although both of these aren’t as highly transmissible as they hypothetical explode virus.
But the Black Death mixed high contagion and high mortality as an actual example that shows they aren’t mutually exclusive.
What? That's your second strawman in two comments.
Nobody said you claimed they were harmless. People are taking issue with your assertion that biological agents can be either contagious or lethal (not both), and therefore you discount its risk. This implied tradeoff between contagiousness and lethality simply is not enforced by anything in nature.
The natural emergence of a pathogen that's both highly contagious and highly lethal would be a much rarer event than the natural emergence of one that's either contagious or lethal, but we're talking about engineered pathogens. There is no reason to think that pathogens cannot be deliberately created that are both of those things.
> without a very knowledgeable handler that knows exactly what they want and how to correct errant output...
For now, but I think the problem will become that we will soon start undercutting the bench and the rookie technologists, which in the future will eliminate the “very knowledgeable handlers” or make them exceedingly rare.
I am of the opinion that AI will improve and makes some great leaps for society and then gradually start to enshitify literally everything because we will no longer have people able to second guess the AI and keep it in check.
> "Impose" makes it sound like Anthropic is being hostile here.
Anthropic is not asking for their product to be used in line with their ethics, they are basically demanding it. I don’t necessarily think they are wrong but I don’t think we need to sugarcoat it either. It’s a demand and if it differs from what the DoW wants to use the tech for…of course its going to be in conflict. “Impose” is appropriate.
> Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving.
Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc…
> It's a total perversion of the fundamental idea of capitalism that governments are competing for companies and wealthy people. That's not how capitalist competition is supposed to work.
Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here? Of course regional governments are going to try and attract local investment.
> Last I heard Google employs around 70k people just in California and that has its genesis in Page and Brin inventing something. Thats pretty damn significant. Those people pay taxes, give to charities, etc…
So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities???
In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre.
And again, Page is not even involved much anymore in Google, which was founded in 1998. Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever, because he did something in the 20th century?
> Exactly what authority or controlling doctrine are you appealing to here?
I'm appealing to economic theory, which posits the benefits of sellers competing with each other for consumers in a free market. It does not posit the benefits of governments competing with each other for sellers, and in fact that grossly distorts the market.
> So is your view is that a bunch of people much less wealthy than Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities is equivalent to Larry Page paying taxes and giving to charities???
What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.
> In other words, rich people don't have to pay taxes as long as their employees do? Bizarre
I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.
> Does he for some reason get a free pass on taxes forever
I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him. People of all incomes make (legal) financial decisions every day for their own benefit. Of you feel the laws are in some way unfair, elect people who will change them.
> appealing to economic theory…
There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?
> What I said was his impact on California has been significant in part because of the business he created and the people that business employs having a significant impact.
Yes, he co-founded Google in 1998, nobody disputes that. But how is that relevant to his personal tax rate in 2026?
You're changing the subject, because we were talking about things Page is doing now, not what he did in the past. I was responding to this: "The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet."
> I never made this claim. Not sure why you are.
What are you arguing, exactly?
> I hope you are not suggesting that he is breaking some law here by choosing to relocate to a more favorable financial environment for him.
No. Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.
> There are lots of economic theories (especially around capitalism). You are assuming laissez-faire somehow trumps others? Why?
I am not a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. However, many people are proponents, and argue that it leads to the best outcome for society. My point is that nobody, except perhaps the billionaires themselves believes that governments competing for the presence of billionaires leads to the best outcome for society. To me it seems like the worst of all possible worlds.
> Paul Graham claimed that California cost itself by driving away Page, whereas I suggested that California wasn't actually losing much by doing so, since Page probably doesn't pay much in taxes now.
I think people are too caught up in the relative amounts here and are missing the forest for the trees. I am sure Page pays a lot in taxes. There is no doubt that he has significantly contributed to California’s economy both by his own efforts as an entrepreneur as well as his own participation in California’s economy. Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it. He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others, but thats just how this all works. What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay and what his perception of California’s tax burden is versus other states.
It’s the downstream opportunity loss that someone like him can create for California if he leaves and then decides take investment elsewhere. This is not about the future taxes that Larry Page the individual or family won’t pay in California. It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.
If you are California’s political leadership you better be concerned about why a Larry Page feels the need to leave and not have the “don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out” attitude. The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.
I'm not so sure. That's why I was asking before for evidence.
> Every minute he lives and practically every dollar he spends inside California has a tax burden associated with it.
In what sense is this different from any other California resident?
> He may not pay the same percentage of his overall wealth as others
That's a vast understatement.
> but thats just how this all works.
That's how it has worked. The wealth tax is trying to change it.
> What matters is: Does he pay what he is legally obligated to pay
How is that what matters? Yes, every person should pay what they're legally obligated to pay. I'm not sure how this is even relevant to the discussion, or how it distinguishes Larry Page from any other person.
> It’s about those next 70k jobs that he likely wont create in California, but might create in Texas or Florida.
There's no evidence that Larry Page can or will create another Google now.
It's also worth noting that Page was just a relatively poor college student when he founded Google. It wasn't because of his wealth. Perhaps he'd have more incentive to found another Google if he were deprived of all his wealth again. On the other hand, perhaps he just had one really great idea in his life.
> The fastest way to hobble your state is to drive out the wealth inside it.
It's one dude. Maybe a few more dudes will go too. In any case, California will be fine. The largest state in the nation does not depend on one dude.
Larry Page came to California from Michigan, not for the tax rates, but to attend Stanford. Last time I checked, Stanford still exists, and is still in California.
Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.
California can certainly choose how to tax it’s residents and businesses and they will own the results of those decisions. Personally I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing and will help encourage new business investment. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but I doubt it.
> Wow…so laser focused on the trees and on the one man aspect of this.
The subject of the HN submission is the California wealth tax, which affects only billionaires. There are only about 200 in California. Moreover, only a few of those billionaires have left California, or are threatening to leave. So, I'm "laser focused" on the subject of the HN submission and puzzled by your remark here. Note that Larry Page's name is literally included in the submission title. I don't know what else I should be talking about here.
> I doubt that implementing aggressive wealth taxes will do anything to reverse the population loss trends they are seeing
That isn't the purpose of the wealth tax. And again, there are only about 200 billionaires in California, so even if they all left, which isn't happening, that's practically nothing compared to the total population of almost 40 million.
I haven't investigated, but my suspicion would be that high housing prices are a significant reason for people leaving California. Creating another Google wouldn't help at all with that. To the contrary, it would probably drive up the housing prices even more. Even big tech company employees find the housing prices ridiculous!
They have money that you don't think certain people deserve and you want it for your own purposes. Your method of separating the money from them is by force. Not sure what else you would call it?
> The idea that Iranians are marching in the streets begging for a monarchy is so absurd only the dumbest will believe it.
What they are begging for is change. What they know practically is basically two forms of government in modern memory. It would not be unusual to advocate for the other alternate you know or your grandparents have told you about.
I tend to view these reports through 2 user lenses. User 1 - the user who generally uses signed, safe software, using the device for non-engineering productivity, content consumption, and creative uses.
Then there is the user 2s. Thats the user with the unsigned software. That download and compiles the random “Show HN” without deep examination. That is experimenting at the lower levels, and might have written some home brewed scripts and apps running on their device.
Generally the user 1s aren’t complaining about updates unless there is an controversial UI or UX change. These are the more reliable reference group for the overall success or failure of an OS update.
User 2s contain all the edge cases configurations that the OS publisher can never fully test for, and generally just aren't reliable evaluators of OS updates.
Plus I believe that if you took the “11 days away” claim off the table I don’t think you accurately say that a blockade without the military campaign first would have been successful. Seems like we are in a “what came first the chicken or the egg” moment.
There is no doubt in my mind that a blockade with an intact Iranian navy would not necessarily look like this one.
reply