@CENTCOMFarsi اگر شرف داشتید، سرداران سپاه و نیروهای سرکوب را میزدید و با حمایت از مردم، این رژیم را سرنگون میکردید. اما شما شرف ندارید, و یک ایران ضعیف با رژیمی کمی خطرناک نیاز دارید تا بتوانید مدام به کشوران عربی سلاح بفروشید.
ایرانیهایی که شما را به عنوان دوست میدیدند از شما ناامیداند.
BIG BREAKING NEWS
THE PAKISTAN PRIME MINISTER HAS ANNOUNCED A DEAL BETWEEN THE U.S. AND IRAN
THE CEREMONY WILL BE IN SWITZERLAND ON JUNE 19TH
🇺🇸🇮🇷🇵🇰🇨🇭‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️‼️
@s_m_marandi congratulation, you are the most hated person in the entire world
that's you
رذل = آدم پست و بیشرف
خائن = کسی که خیانت کرده
فرومایه = حقیر و پست
پلشت = کثیف و نفرتانگیز
دیوصفت = دارای صفات شیطانی
جانی = اگر ظلم و جنایت کرده باشد
مردود = از نظر اخلاقی کاملاً سقوط کرد
The comparison is interesting, but I think it oversimplifies the structure of both markets.
What you call “vibe-trading” is often just short-term positioning driven by liquidity and sentiment — which exists in every asset class, including oil.
The key difference is not vibes vs fundamentals, but depth and pricing mechanisms. Oil has Dated Brent as a physical anchor, agreed — but Treasuries are anchored by something even stronger: global liquidity, central bank policy, and the cost of money itself.
During events like Hormuz risk-off, flows into Treasuries are not just “vibes” — they reflect system-wide risk repricing, not a house of cards.
If anything, both markets function — not because they look solid on paper — but because they absorb global risk in different ways.