Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

46% Positive

Analyzed from 5360 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#iran#oil#more#war#houthis#trump#europe#israel#prices#china

Discussion (177 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

bhouston8 minutes ago
The Houthis created a fake audio of a major Yemeni commander telling his troops to retreat which was subsequently amplified on Twitter/X.

Apparently, this helped the Houthis advance quickly as the opposition forces were in disarray.

https://x.com/BashaReport/status/2097862335494795579

consumer4513 minutes ago
Holy shit. This is really interesting. AI used to impersonate, and that led to a significant military defeat?
2OEH8eoCRo05 minutes ago
Twitter/X should be held liable.
737min2 minutes ago
Ansar Allah (Houthis) is a terrible Islamist group that commits warcrimws against both Yemenis and people thousands of miles away. Here’s just one example, executing men for gayness:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/27/yemen-houthis-sentence-m...

“In addition to death sentences that include crucifixion and stoning, the Houthi court sentenced 23 men to prison for periods of up to 10 years. Three of them were also sentenced to public flogging”

mamonster31 minutes ago
That's why relying on mercs (which is what both UAE and Saudi chose in Yemen) is a double edged sword. At some point the cash isn't enough of a motivator and they will just run away.
inglor_cz10 minutes ago
We seem to be in need of a mercenary Uber, where individual mercenaries will have their reputation and the potential customers will be able to check it.
random36 minutes ago
Likely Palantir built it already
tfigueroa3 minutes ago
Hideo Kojima intensifies
softwaredoug32 minutes ago
My understanding is we haven’t gotten to full Hormuz apocalypse mode because the Chinese have a ton of stockpiles. And the Red Sea has been an option.

Those conditions seem to be changing.

AnotherGoodName24 minutes ago
The Houthis also explicitly allow Chinese vessels and Chinese ships have been able to traverse the red sea without issue. Which means China actually has more ability to access oil than other countries right now.

I suspect the Chinese won’t be happy with the pipeline and refinery attacks on Saudi Arabia but i also assume that there will still be plenty of Chinese bound oil for the foreseeable future.

ericmay11 minutes ago
Well at some point the problem becomes so acute that others in the world are going to have to step up and help solve it.

Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. It's an intolerable premise and if the price to be paid is global oil catastrophe it's a price well worth paying and America will force the issue as we have. You can deny this or you can accept that other actors have agency in the world and interests and they may take action that negatively affects you indirectly. You can help them, ignore them, fight against them. But we live in a world where other countries and other people will do things and you have to figure out how to best deal with it.

We have seen what happened with North Korea, but at least China and Russia can somewhat keep a lid on it. Which is the minimum they owe the rest of us since they created that problem. Iran's government is ideological in a way that westerners don't really understand (and to some extent Putin is too via his desires regarding Ukraine but the Russian system isn't too alien to our own views - they play tennis and vacation in Europe and all that stuff). Their government is simply not interested in the things that you and I are interested in.

With Iran you add in the pursuit of a nuclear weapon, Iranian continued attacks coordinated in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Israel via Palestine and it's desire to continue to destabilize the region, supporting Russia's war against Ukraine, and helping Russia evade sanctions (never mind domestic repression and murder) and you've really got a problem on your hands that needs solved one way or another if we're going to go the whole peace and stability for the globe route. The primary problem right now is that the rest of the world would rather see the United States take care of this problem (and it's having a tough time but there's a lot of nuance there) then to help because if you are Europe you're somewhat on Iran's side for some god awful reason, if you are Russia, well you work with Iran, if you are the gulf powers you have no power besides your oil, and if you are China you are not going to spend any resources (nor do you have power projection capabilities). So what do we do?

You can sit here yelling until you are blue in the face that this is Trump's war, or he shouldn't have started it (ignoring history) or some nonsense about ancient colonialism (Iran itself is attempting to be a Neo colonial power) or how Israel is so bad or something but Iran's behavior in the region simply cannot continue if you value peace and stability and global trade. Yea whatever Trump isn't a force for that either I get it, but that's not a good argument to make things worse by also letting Iran do crazy shit.

China's stockpiles are dwindling, strategically that's bad for China especially if they want to invade democratic Taiwan. You still need oil to run the military, no amount of batteries are going to power jet fighters or missiles for the foreseeable future. But dwindle they will and eventually China (and others) will be forced to buy oil and it will raise prices. We're all going to have to deal with that eventuality.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine also cut off large amounts of oil and gas supplies via sanctions, and the United States clamping down on both Venezuela and Iran has further restrained oil supplies as the US has also gone after Russian shadow fleet tankers which were adding additional capacity to the market. The EU has done a little bit here too after the US led the way.

Global chokepoints are a problem. Having so much of the world (primarily Asia) rely on oil and gas from the Middle East where you've got these militant groups funding by Iran who can at a whim decide if they don't get some concession that they're going to cut off oil for everyone else is intolerable. Again, say what you want but we as a planet should not be beholden to this kind of behavior.

theplumber5 minutes ago
I doubt that the world will subscribe to the idiocy of the current US admin. China will just push harder for renewables while Europe and the rest of the world will try to coup with the shock but I am certain they won’t go to war with Iran because they have no reason. Eventually US will have to decide if it’s going to do anything or just live with high oil prices for long or just go back home in a British Suez fashion.
ericmay1 minute ago
> Eventually US will have to decide if it’s going to do anything or just live with high oil prices for long or just go back home in a British Suez fashion.

This is the flaw in your thinking. It won't be the US who alone decides to live with high oil prices, it'll be everyone.

Vague promises of "pushing for renewables" is a gross mischaracterization and misunderstanding of the importance of oil and gas to the global economy. Note, I'm not anti-renewable or whatever, but chalking this up to a "US problem" is willfully ignorant.

rconti5 minutes ago
If we accept your premise, the current war has made us less safe, because we've had previous, stronger nuclear deals that have now been torn up in a failed attempt to replace their leader with someone more favorable to the US.
ericmay2 minutes ago
Iran probably wasn't following the JCPOA, denied inspectors access to certain sites, and you'd also have to say you 100% trust American intelligence to verify that Iran isn't building a nuclear weapon in secret and if you want to do that I've got a war to sell you in Iraq.

Separately that doesn't resolve the other issues, funding militant groups, &c.

pphysch8 minutes ago
Why can Israel have a nuclear weapon? It is also an insanely violent ethno-theocratic regime.
ericmay4 minutes ago
Besides the point and whataboutism, but I'm not advocating that Israel should have nuclear weapons. They do, and I'm not sure there's much we can do about it at this point. Same with North Korea. I'm opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and just because one country has one doesn't mean other countries should go and get them too.
bijowo167622 minutes ago
the reason China was using stockpiles is they want to time the gasoline price shock right to the midterm elections. The moment they stop using stockpiles and start purchasing the prices will jump
Frieren7 minutes ago
> time the gasoline price shock right to the midterm elections.

Donald Trump can end this at any time if he wants. It would have been better to not have started it, thou. Less killing of innocent people, less spending on weapons, better mental health for USA soldiers...

And why is China suddenly at fault for America's actions?

mikrl17 minutes ago
I’m playing an industrializing China game in Victoria 3.

Made trade deals with the US and France, both turned around and insulted me within a few months.

Turns out my construction sectors winding down caused an iron glut in my market and crashed their GDPs by 10% presumably by undercutting them.

softwaredoug20 minutes ago
Well roughly now would be when you’d time a huge shock

OTOH midterm generic ballots are much more stable than top line presidential horse race polling. So it might only matter at the margins.

lowbloodsugar14 minutes ago
lol. The orange man is doing more damage to the USA than China could ever do short of actual war. He is destroying the US militarily, economically and politically. They emphatically support his efforts.
kadoban8 minutes ago
At some point they might prefer stability and sanity. I would bet that at this point they don't care much either way.

China is playing long, most of the ~unchanging things are in their favor and the US already proved that they're unreliable. People won't forget that soon even if Trump is gone.

sicktriple11 minutes ago
The Century of American Humiliation continues
Byvrsakjo102 minutes ago
The Houthi's have a Saudi backed adversary, I haven't heard about them lately in mainstream media how are they faring?
labrador4 minutes ago
Donald Trump hosted roughly 20 oil and gas executives from major companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Occidental Petroleumat his Mar-a-Lago resort on April 11, 2024.

His message to the room was essentially that giving $1 billion to his campaign was a low-cost investment that would guarantee massive financial returns for their companies

Reflection Eternal | Ballad of the Black Gold https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryFMKYNJeTM

    This is the ballad of the black gold
    They call it Texas tea
    But it's bigger than a cowboy with a lasso
    It's deeper than a black hole
    Create monopolies
    Except they collect your fee when you pass Go
    Crisis international
    The government de facto
    We got no control of this fiasco
    Darker than the back roads
    Bubble hotter than Tabasco
    More than what you bargained for or asked for
seatac767 minutes ago
If Dems win next time around they should repeal the AUMF at the very least. We cannot be at war at all times.
ajross1 minute ago
The problem is that "being at war" isn't really the problem, it's a symptom. A lawless and destabilized gulf region is the result of incomplete and inneffective military action, and in a darkly hilarious way is only treatable by more whack-a-mole warfare.

It wasn't a war we could win. We fought it anyway. Now we're stuck trying to lose in a tolerable way. Which requires more fighting.

At some point the balance will tip and China will take over patronage of the right selection of powers to push us out, which will disentangle western involvement (and make it their problem, of course). But at this stage there really is no hope for genuine stability.

737min13 minutes ago
More properly called Ansar Allah, supported by Iranian regime, and guilty of war crimes against everyone from fellow Yemenis to people thousands of miles away.

Women, gays and infidels are pubished by Houthi police.

wuisce9 minutes ago
Yes. So sad an American supported liberal regime wasn't installed by the US in Yemen.
inglor_cz9 minutes ago
IIRC their official slogan has literally "Curse the Jews" in it.
2OEH8eoCRo02 minutes ago
littlecranky67about 2 hours ago
Will this bring oil prices down in Europe? Oil tankers could still go to the mediteranian via the suez canal. This will not help asia, but I can imagine if it is too dangerous the go through bab al-mandab strait it is more lucrative to sell the crude oil to europe at a discount?
seatac764 minutes ago
I wouldn’t count on safe Med passage, I think last month a drone attacked a ship in Egypt. And the channel to Suez isn’t exactly wide or out of range for Houthis.

GCC will have to talk to Iran now, there is no reasonable way out of this quagmire other than a regional accommodation with Iran. Talk about a regression but here we are.

markvdbabout 1 hour ago
No. A cynic might think a significant part of this half-arsed Iran war was:

- make sure fuel prices increase globally

- The US economy is relatively well-shielded from the fallout by its own fossil fuel sources, local and in colonies like Venezuela.

- export more US fossil fuels, especially to Europe, at inflated prices. US insiders reap the profits.

- further kneecap European competitiveness in energy intensive sectors, steal market share. Oh well, small gift to China here too, but still a net win for the US.

noelsusmanabout 1 hour ago
It's nice to think there was some sort of plan, but the truth is much scarier.
danisth12 minutes ago
I believe there were pieces of a plan. This global energy shift gambit being one of them. I don’t think there was a unified strategy with contingencies etc though (if there was it certainly wasn’t very good).
postsantum32 minutes ago
>some sort of plan

George Friedman, The Next Decade

the_gipsy31 minutes ago
Short-term benefits seem to be good enough for America in this new age.
hebelehubeleabout 1 hour ago
The US sells oil and refined products to other countries. So a supply crunch would raise prices even there too. Everyday Americans are not getting fuel for cheap.
toygabout 1 hour ago
Nobody cares about everyday Americans, it's about American corporations. Exxon and friends are printing money.
Art968137 minutes ago
Realpolitik might just be the best way to do things after all.
giardini4 minutes ago
Please don't leave us in suspense: what would "realpolitik" be in this instance?
wins3276720 minutes ago
Its almost like not having meaningful power projection capabilities when you rely on imports for essential industries is not good!
Al-Khwarizmi43 minutes ago
Sure, if you make oil prices increase, US oil companies and their shareholders rake in more cash. But it's harmful for the average American because filling up the tank costs a lot more. Then that price hike spreads to everything else that relies on oil (which is pretty much everything) leading to inflation and rising interest rates (already starting to happen, the shielding you mention doesn't seem to be working, which makes sense in a relatively free-market economy). If the situation drags on, unemployment rises due to soaring costs across the board, and the economy goes to hell.

A rise in crude prices might pay off for a small country that lives almost exclusively off it (say, Saudi Arabia, in the hyphotetical case that it could keep exporting as normal) but for the US? I don't think it does. Surely, Europe is more exposed than the US and will suffer even more, but this is not a zero-sum game.

So I don't think it's an elaborate plan, it's just Trump being reckless as usual.

Catloafdev29 minutes ago
I wouldn't assume this administration gives a shit about inflation or rising interest rates or how the rest of the economy is doing. Do you have any reason to believe they do?
epolanski38 minutes ago
You're missing a key part: energy prices in US go up too. It doesn't matter if US and its colonies are net producers.
watwutabout 1 hour ago
I just dont think these guy are even capable to plan that much.
galangalalgol38 minutes ago
If you think so little of them, then imagine what the people who pay $5M for a meal with him can convince him to do. Or what people who pay his son-in-law/iran-negotiator 25M a year can call and ask him to do.
p-e-wabout 1 hour ago
Then you probably believe that the US government only consists of the half dozen clowns you see on TV every day.
llm_nerd2 minutes ago
The US is the world's must vulnerable economy to oil shocks. I mean the real economy, not the farce that the markets currently are.

The Venezuela comment is extremely weird. You know Venezuela has negligible production, right, and that it would take 100s of billions of investments, over a decades, to get reasonable production. That's ignoring that currently there is a laughably illegitimate puppet government that has a 100% chance of a violent overthrow in the future. Which is exactly why all of the oil companies are shrugging and saying no thanks.

Venezuela is a farce -- much like $5000 "dividend" for a government literally on the precipice of bankruptcy, as Bessent runs around, near tears, trying to convince everyone that they're the house, to laughter all around -- that Trump thinks gives him leverage against Canada. It is unbelievably pathetic business, like renaming a 400+ year old name on a lake like a little bitch.

There is zero scenario where this has benefitted the US, but a drunkard incompetent secdef (sorry "secwar") convinced a foolish demented rapist, who already had Israel whispering in his ear, how easy and painless this foolish debacle will be.

ROFL.

EGregabout 1 hour ago
This was clearly a secret attempt of Trump's to be the world's best president for getting off fossil fuels and moving to renewables. The man is playing 7 dimensional chess bro!

When all is said and done it will be he, not AOC or Bernie or any "Green New Deal" folks, that will be remembered by history as the president who did more to get people off fossil fuels than any other.

fofozabout 1 hour ago
He's so clever that he's probably even playing chess in a Hilbert space. The whole world envies American voters, who will receive $5,000 if they re-elect this incredible genius.
bijowo16767 minutes ago
Trump is just accelerating the course of history. The fall of American hegemony, the humiliation of the MIC, the petrodollar, the fossil fuels, the USD as reserve currency is like speedrunning the historical events to reach the next more balanced equilibrium state
skeeter2020about 1 hour ago
I've never seen oil prices decrease due to any regional disruption; the market is global. If the price in Alberta went up when the Straight closed, I wouldn't hold my breathe for Europe in this scenario.
serf19 minutes ago
>I've never seen oil prices decrease due to any regional disruption; the market is global.

oil spiked and then crashed during the gulf war & the iraq war in 03.

the gulf war probably because of western price control methods kicking in, the iraq war because of an increase in confidence that the region would produce oil after western 'securing' of oil fields allowing further volume investment from the UAE and friends.

I guess it really just depends on what the definition of 'regional disruption' is.

jonplackettabout 1 hour ago
This is part of the Houthis preventing Saudi Arabia from exporting any oil at all. So no I don’t think it’s gonna make oil lower. Higher probably. But oil is doing very weird things.
jcranmer34 minutes ago
VLCCs are too large to fit through the Suez Canal. I don't know how much of Saudi export is using VLCCs versus Suezmax or smaller tankers, but I've heard that much of the Red Sea oil export is currently going through Bab al-Mandab, not that I have a source on hand.
talon863537 minutes ago
Aren’t these groups working with, no against, China?

And against, not with, Western Europe?

So being prices down where, in eastern Europe?

danans38 minutes ago
> if it is too dangerous the go through bab al-mandab strait it is more lucrative to sell the crude oil to europe at a discount?

I suspect they would sooner curtail production rather then sell at a discount due to route restrictions.

briffleabout 2 hours ago
most large tankers are too large for both the Suez and Panama Canals.
sonotathrowawayabout 1 hour ago
There are tankers built specifically for the Suez Canal
computomaticabout 1 hour ago
Suezmax tankers, panamax, etc. Anything bigger needs to go around
estearum40 minutes ago
Which are already being used to transit the Suez Canal.
epolanski39 minutes ago
Oil is sold globally.

It doesn't matter if in Texas wells are producing it at a penny for barrel, if the global prices are high that oil is going to be sold to Philippinos, Japanese, Italians or South Africans.

So, at the same time, it doesn't matter if some new routes open or close, it doesn't particularly favor one or the other buyer, it's still sold globally on a bid.

echelon25 minutes ago
Until we bar export.
bijowo16764 minutes ago
why would Exxon allow export ban and lose exorbitant profits ?
alephnerdabout 2 hours ago
> Will this bring oil prices down in Europe ... This will not help Asia

This hurts Europe more than Asia.

The UK, France, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, and others are similarly opposed to the Houthis having conducted airstrikes on the Houthis (eg. 2025) as well as helping target them directly or indirectly.

And a large portion of global shipping is owned by Greek conglomerates - a country that is a close ally of Israel.

Most GCC states also have some form of defense agreement with the UK or France. If those turn out to be meaningless, it reduces their incentive to cut preferential deals with European states.

Additionally, this further enhances Turkiye and Pakistan's hand, as Saudi Arabia has signed defense pacts with both and Pakistan has threatened action against Iran yesterday if further incidents threaten Saudi Arabia. If they were able to dislodge the Houthis without direct European intervention, then it is a massive black stain on the EU's power projection capacity and it's claim that it should be treated as a great power. It also gives Turkiye additional leverage against the EU.

Finally, the Houthis struck the East-West Pipeline [0]. Much of the KSA's oil is in Eastern Saudi Arabia around Dhahran. Most large Asian states like China, India, Japan, and South Korea have continued operations in Iran that allowed them continued passage. European states lack access to GCC oil as a result of Perim island being controlled by the Houthis.

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/yemens-houthis-rea...

eaglealabout 1 hour ago
Yeah the EU leadership has been really shortsighted on these past decades (especially since the 10s), especially in their strategic energy and industrial sectors.

Be it the Ukranian conflict, the ME crisis, the NA wars and instabilities, etc. The EU is the one that geopolitically speaking lost the most.

Unless they're full puppets for foreign interests, I simply do not understand how they could leave foreign actors to dictate policies that affect thier own territory and enterprises without any sort of critical thought.

But even then, they could not have possibly been all mere puppets. And yet.

fabian2kabout 1 hour ago
It was cheaper, I don't think it's much more complex than that. And with fossil fuels, countries without significant local production are always dependent on someone else, with most potential suppliers being problematic in some way.

Of course we should have gone for renewable energy more forcefully, but that wouldn't have resolved the issue. That change will take time, and you can't arbitrarily accelerate it.

markus_zhangabout 1 hour ago
I guess you only need maybe 20% of them to be puppets to mess around. It’s a lot easier to damage than to build.
Tuna-Fishabout 1 hour ago
Aren't those really easy to explain?

EU opposes the Houthis because they are a horrifying slave state that distributes children as sex slaves to their troops.

EU opposes Russia because it is a horrifying fascist dictatorship that has repeatedly invaded it's neighbors, and constantly talks about it's historical claims to EU territory.

In the NA conflicts it's harder to draw such a clear line, because the conflicts typically have about 15 sides each, but the basic algorithm you can use is generally that EU tries very hard to pick sides based on morality, not geopolitical interests.

alephnerdabout 1 hour ago
The issue was 1990s-2000s Germany argued it was in Europe's best interest to integrate Russia into the European fabric, but 1990s-2000s France+UK+Italy argued it was in Europe's best interest to integrate the Mediterranean into the European fabric.

When the UK left the EU and France+Italy were in the midst of their economic doldrums due to the Eurozone crisis, this left the hard power states within the EU comparatively weakened.

But the collapse of Minsk II and the ongoing war in the Middle East led to a cascading crisis for a unified Europe.

gib444about 1 hour ago
> Unless they're full puppets for foreign interests

It's an open secret that Russian money is deep, deep in European politics.

throwaway198846about 1 hour ago
> Japan, and South Korea have continued operations in Iran that allowed them continued passage.

1.How do they pay Iran considering the sanctions? 2.Do you think EU shouldn't sanction Iran even though they violated NNPT and their terrible record on human rights because Iran can threaten them with a sufficient price?

> a country that is a close ally of Israel

Are they? They never sent a single weapon or soldier to help israel, they have no formal or informal mutual defense agreement. Israel buy no military equipment from Greece. You mistake mutual interest because of a common enemy - Turkey to close alliance.

alephnerdabout 1 hour ago
1. Waivers, state owned enterprises, shell corporations, barter trades, and using their own currencies for transactions

2. I agree. I'm just being prosaic as to why European states are in the pickle they are today.

3. They are closely entwined via logistics, but Cyprus would be an even closer Israel-Cyprus ties. The reality is, the Saudi-Turkiye-Kuwait-Pakistan alliance is a direct reaction to the Israel-Greece-Cyprus-UAE-India cooperation or the now signed Israel-Greece-Cyprus trilateral.

ak_11119 minutes ago
This war started as a regime change operation in Iran, one of the shakiest regimes in the world pre-war, but ironically the war might end up with most of the nations who supported the war (either vocally or quietly) "regime changed" (loosely defined), including Israel, US, some European countries and now possibly some Gulf nations, awhile the Iranian regime seem to have tightened its grip more than ever.

Yet MAGA supporters were saying early in the war that they are "plan trusters" as prior US admins sucked at regime change because it is a "skills issue" and none of the prior admins had the triple digits IQ of Hegseth, Trump and Bessent.

danisth15 minutes ago
Not sure where you get the shaky regime idea, but Iran was not on the verge of collapse from protests prior to the war. It may have been on the verge of more aggressive clamping down from the IRGC, but collapse wasn’t around the corner.
fnordpiglet7 minutes ago
Triple digit when summed I assume?

If they were going to try this it needed to be done months earlier when the protests were raging. Instead the brain trust fumbled the initiative and let the Iranian leadership kill and scourge their local allies into compliance. Then fumbling the decapitation strike coupled with the decades of preparation for a decapitation strike (via redundancy of command) the genius brigade seemed to be unaware of because they fired all the experts, and the total repression of the protesting populace, led to an unusually strong system in Iran. They also almost certainly let racism play a big role in underestimating the Iranians, who are a very technically sophisticated society and have been preparing for this scenario since day one of the revolution.

Everything that’s happened was predictable and predicted, which is why other administrations who were more than happy to topple foreign governments when it suited them to not do so in Iran. MAGA feels like the junior dev that blames the compiler for their own syntax errors.

panny6 minutes ago
>This war started as a regime change operation in Iran

I believe this war started with a tomahawk missle murdering a school full of children and then the US denying involvement. I very clearly remember it. US attacks Iran unprovoked. First act, murder their children in school. If you wanted to solidify opposition to the US in Iran, I don't think they could have done a more effective job.

somenameforme10 minutes ago
Do you even realize that one of the only reason anybody still supports this war is precisely because of comments like yours? By dividing people into teams, and antagonizing them, you result in people never willing to stomach giving an inch and doubling down on stupid.

Obviously this war has been the US' latest great failure, and at the beckoning of a foreign power which makes it especially catastrophic. If people could focus on this, rather than trying to divide things into teams and then sling mud, they'd have vastly better outcomes come November (and on) than just using it for divisive mudslinging which does nothing but ensure that all elections, regardless of how bad the decisions of a incumbent, or how awful a challenger, will remain these sort of 50/50 coinflips.

tonmoy3 minutes ago
[delayed]
kadoban6 minutes ago
> the triple digits IQ of Hegseth, Trump and Bessent.

One digit each.

Advertisement
khriss28 minutes ago
I wouldn't be surprised if this got downvoted off the front page in minutes, just like the other story about diesel being at all time highs.

There is a well coordinated group here that seems unusually allergic to inconvenient truths.

aliasxneo23 minutes ago
Why does that have to be the only reason? I personally think it has nothing to do with "Hacker" news, but I understand that sentiment has been in the fringe lately with HN becoming increasingly political.
lukan25 minutes ago
Yes yes, my tinfoil protected brains thinks the same!

Or wait, maybe just flamewar style debates are not so welcome here, so people flag instead have another debate about who is more evil?

dismalaf13 minutes ago
Attacking Iran and then backing down has just shown all the West's enemies that the US has no resolve.
bicx1 minute ago
The U.S. leadership has a bad habit of starting conflicts that the bulk of the population doesn't want, which leads to large political costs and resulting half-measures. Our current leadership literally ran on "no more wars." Morons.
sys3276813 minutes ago
In other news, Cantor Fitzgerald lost about 150 information-technology workers when the north tower collapsed on this day 25 years ago.
737min11 minutes ago
This. Seeing Islamists celebrated on HN front page today is shocking..
mrbombastic4 minutes ago
I don’t see a single comment I would describe as celebrating this
laimewhisps32 minutes ago
All we had to do was not bomb Iran (starting with a school full of girls). There was no benefit to the US in this war, it’s 100% for Israel. Bribery and blackmail, not democracy, are now determining world events.
jswartz25 minutes ago
Trump has had it out for Iran since 1980, but sure, just blame it on the Jews.
huntertwo19 minutes ago
Is blaming the government of Israel equivalent to blaming the Jews?
jswartz11 minutes ago
Not always, but often.

The poster blaming everything "100%" on Israel tells me that they are not a person of nuance, and people who engage in rigid, black-and-white thinking often have overly simplistic views about how the world works (e.g. Jews control the world).

Correlation does not mean causation, but it hints at it.

Ydarbleoj12 minutes ago
Whoa. That's not at all what they said and shows you lack intellectual honesty.
Patirckjdhej16 minutes ago
Oh, antisemitism is now allowed?
electrondood3 minutes ago
How exactly would you recommend criticizing the actions of the State of Israel then, without being labeled antisemitic?

I'm sick of this equivocation. Nobody is claiming that Jewish people in general manipulated Trump into touching the stove.

Some facts:

* Netanyahu met with Trump in February to show him a presentation intended to convince him to attack Iran.

* Netanyahu convinced Trump that it would be fast and easy.

* Trump's own intelligence agencies and cabinet members called this "farcical" and "bullshit."

* Trump gave the green light anyway, based on Netanyahu's presentation, and against the advice of CIA, State, and the Joint Chiefs.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/07/us/politics/trump-iran-wa...

pknerdabout 1 hour ago
Trump has decided that he'd sink along with the entire Middle east
criddell37 minutes ago
What makes you think this, out of the non-stop parade of Trump crazy bullshit, is the issue that will finally sink him?
pknerd29 minutes ago
Wait for the November
laimewhisps31 minutes ago
Because his supporters have huge trucks and need tons of gas.
ExoticPearTreeabout 2 hours ago
Why all the quotation marks in the article? It's not like they interviewed toddlers that said funny things.
afavourabout 2 hours ago
It’s in quotation marks because it’s a quotation. The BBC have not independently verified that the Houthis have taken control of the island, they are reporting what a government source has said.
huurtehoog28 minutes ago
It has nothing to do with verification.

They are simply reporting what sources have said:

Houthis 'take control' of Perim Island - government source published at 09:00

Houthi rebels have "taken control" of Perim Island in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, according to a source. Earlier, we were reporting that the group had reached the key island.

The AFP news agency also says Houthis have "taken over" Perim Island, also referred to as Mayyun, according to eyewitnesses and a local government official.

"Boats carrying armed Houthi fighters reached Mayyun Island after government forces withdrew from it yesterday," the official tells AFP.

blitzarabout 1 hour ago
They need to start doing this when other "regimes" make wild claims.
wat10000about 1 hour ago
They always have.

It's funny to see the evolution of language. Quotation marks indicated that something was a direct quote. Then people started to use them as a sarcasm indicator. Now we're to the point where people can't even recognize them as indicating a direct quote.

nayrocladeabout 2 hours ago
This is completely standard journalistic practice when reporting a quote on something that is currently contentious or unproven. For example, consider the two hypothetical headlines:

Activists decry police murder of protester

Activists decry police "murder" of protester

The first implies that the police murdering the protestor is an established fact. The second makes it clear that it is the activists who used the term "murder" rather than it being a non-contentious fact.

lkeyabout 1 hour ago
Both versions are fancifully direct in our era a media+police stenography, try:

Mayor denounces "radical activists" rioting and damaging city property in response to an officer-involved incident that resulted in one fatal kinetic altercation with a "loud and provocatively dressed" man.

amiga386about 1 hour ago
> officer-involved incident

Ah, the past exonerative tense. https://archive.is/wPVdy

Read McSweeney's guide to ambiguous grammar, where they lead you step by step from the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog to the ultimate say-nothing sentence speed was involved in a jumping-related incident while a fox was brown, and the punchline is you can then translate "the St Louis County Police Department was involved in an officer-involved shooting after officers came under heavy gunfire" to "a police officer shot a black person"

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-interactive-guide-to-...

But no, that's the language issued by police departments covering their asses. Journalists are a little bit covering their asses in making clear what is a quote and what isn't, but they're still responsible for what they choose to quote, and to be clear on whether they have verified the claims they're quoting.

Ideally, unverified claims shouldn't even be in an article. But when there _has_ been some kind of stramash, they just don't know who did what, the need to rush out an article to get clicks means they'll just quote both sides and try to give them equal prominence until they can do more verification.

dylan604about 1 hour ago
It doesn't help when snippets are post leaving out the other context clues where things like "according to" or "anonymous source stated" or similar attribute of the quote. Just putting words between quotation marks does not lead me to believe they were quotes if there is no attribution. Otherwise, it's a Trump level "people tell me" type of "quote".
JoshTriplettabout 1 hour ago
In that case, that seems like a variation of the "past exonerative tense".
gowldabout 1 hour ago
Do you consider every trial defendant to be exonerated?
vanschelvenabout 2 hours ago
Presumably to indicate that the parts in quotes are indeed quoted literally from the source that is mentioned in the same sentence?
nkorenabout 2 hours ago
When I moved from the US to the UK, the use of quotation marks in news headlines was something that confused me. In the US, these would be "scare quote", with the quotation marks basically standing in for the words "so-called". In the UK, that is NOT their meaning. The quotation marks mean "we are not ourselves in a position to verify this, but it is the words that a source has told us". Very different meaning -- and once I got used to it, I think the UK use of language in this case is more honest and useful.

tl;dr: two countries, divided by a common language.

gobipabout 1 hour ago
This is like this in most of Europe: when in "quotes", it is not the journalist, but the person who said something. For example, Obama said "Yes we can". He did not say yes we can, he said "Yes we can".

It is not about the quotes being verified or unverified. It is about something said by somebody, that you are reporting.

cake-ruskabout 1 hour ago
This is precisely what the word quote means!
jameshartabout 1 hour ago
It’s not so much ‘we are not in a position to verify’ as the fact that the person who said the thing, and what they said, is itself newsworthy.

If you’re reporting that “Government sources say Houthis have ‘taken control’ of an island” then the fact that government sources used the words ‘taken control’ is itself interesting.

The headlines “Russia ‘will be defeated’ in Ukraine says Zelensky”, “Russia ‘will be defeated’ in Ukraine says Putin”, and “Russia ‘will be defeated’ in Ukraine says Taylor Swift” all tell of vastly different news events.

shawnzabout 1 hour ago
Is it really a different meaning? Isn't the implication that they tried, and failed, to independently verify the claim?
petesergeantabout 1 hour ago
No, it's a statement of who is making the claim.
cynixabout 1 hour ago
Does “so-called” not mean “words that someone has told us”?
NDlurkerabout 1 hour ago
Huh? That's how quotation marks are used here in the US too
pessimizerabout 1 hour ago
It's a garbage habit that they've all fallen into. The quotes will fall away when future stories refer back to this story.

That single quoted phrase was set in the context of other words, and that context defined its meaning. We know this to an extent that almost no one could have imagined since LLMs have become a huge part of the world.

My favorite example of this is how no article in Britain during Corbyn's leadership of the labor party would ever quote an entire sentence that he had said. Thousands of articles, and the quotes were all fragmentary phrases and lone words framed in editorial.

edit: Brits and the BBC especially do this more than most, likely because of their bizarre libel laws (that were once even worse than they are now.)

bcjdjsndonabout 1 hour ago
It's because they been taken to court for mindlessly parroting shit they hear, but instead of actually verifying the truth of the claim (ya know, the entire purpose of a journalist) they just put it in quotes as some kind of "buyer beware" disclaimer
carlosjobimabout 1 hour ago
Journalism is just as much reporting what different influential people say, whether the underlying statement is true or not.

> actually verifying the truth

That's the job of the reader, not the journalist. Unless you're living under oppression. So you have misunderstood the purpose of reporting.

joejohnsonabout 2 hours ago
The BBC only assumes government sources as truth when it's from the crown or Israeli / US governments
andrewla25 minutes ago
My quibble here is with the house style "Iran-backed" that they attach to every mention of the Houthi's. While it's fine for governments to use that language, I don't think journalists should use it without being very specific to its relevance to the particular subject under discussion. The "Houthis claim major advance in Yemen - what you need to know" article could omit "Iran-backed" in its entirety and lose no information of substance, and amend the last bullet point to say that this is especially relevant given the current US-Iran conflict.

As I type this I feel somewhat vindicated by the update to the page, "Iran does not dictate every Houthi decision - but they appear increasingly aligned", which I think does a good job of clarifying the relationship. It does, however, say "Iran has publicly backed the Houthis during the latest fighting. The geography helps explain why", which is useful factual evidence (since Iranian officials have indeed made public statements in support of the Houthis) but the use of "backed" in this sentence is bad style since that word has been used in exactly this context to have a much deeper meaning than Iran saying "we've got your back bro"

consumer45119 minutes ago
The first question should be: who supplies their military equipment?

The next question should be: who benefits?

makotech22122 minutes ago
its a hint to the western audience that they're supposed to be sad about this.