Christo Shabnam

Pineaple of politeness

[Seyed Abbas Araghchi @araghchi]

This is not a rant by a random genocidal lunatic. It's a public post by the national security minister of the Israeli regime.

The genocidal death cult headquartered in Tel Aviv is a threat to all of humanity. It threatens all humans. Its only interest is permanent war.

[Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz]

This campaign, from beginning to end, was built on a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran. There is a significant difference between analyzing Iran through intelligence reports and actually understanding how Iran thinks, operates, and makes decisions.

Concepts such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or seizing Kharg Island overlooked a critical reality: decision-makers in Washington were never likely to accept the risks inherent in such moves, especially when success was far from guaranteed. As a result, most of these ideas remained largely theoretical.

The same applies to the proposed naval blockade. As me and @BrettErickson28 and others argued from the very beginning, it was unlikely to achieve its intended goals. Even if implemented successfully, Iran has extensive experience managing oil production, storage, and exports under pressure. It would take a considerable amount of time before economic pain translated into meaningful strategic pressure, if it did at all. More importantly, Tehran understood that the global economic costs of disrupting energy flows through the Gulf would be immediate and substantial, giving Iran confidence that time was on its side.

And even if the pressure had intensified, Iran's leadership has historically shown a greater willingness to escalate than to capitulate. This is a critical point that many analyses failed to appreciate.

The broader lesson is clear: you cannot design a military campaign against a country like Iran based on assumptions, lobbying efforts, or the views of self-proclaimed experts with political or institutional interests. Decisions of this magnitude require the input of genuine subject-matter experts who understand the country, its strategic culture, and its decision-making processes.

When policymakers fail to do so, military campaigns become far more complicated than expected, which is precisely what happened here.

#iran

[Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz]

Told @Reuters:

We went to topple the regime with U.S. backing and ended with Washington effectively ‌giving legitimacy and strengthening the same regime we wanted to bring down.

The deal delivers none of Israel's core demands: no curbs on Iran's missile programme or proxies and no clear path to dismantling its nuclear facilities. Even Israel's campaign in Lebanon has been constrained by the ceasefire framework imposed at Iran's insistence.

The fallout is both political and strategic. The deal undercuts Netanyahu's narrative on Iran and exposes the limits of his leverage with a U.S. president seen as closely aligned with Israel. Iran has gained room to manoeuvre and the deal risks entrenching its position while deepening Israel's isolation.

#IranWar‌

https://t.co/WM8dnMgbZs

[☀️👀 @zei_squirrel]

Graham was on TV non-stop demanding the genocidal annihilation of Iran with nukes 5 seconds ago, but after a talk with Mossad asset Witkoff who along with fellow asset Kushner runs the US he now has decided that the MoU with Iran is great and he loves peace. This is totally legit

[☀️👀 @zei_squirrel]

once again, there is no "OMG BREAK BETWEEN TRUMP AND NETANYAHU". And once again, all the same hacks who laundered this deception con all the previous times are doing it again without having admitted and apologized for having done it before and being proven wrong, with Trita Parsi leading the way as always (that's why he gets the Koch brother, Soros, Ford and Rockefeller Foundation cash).

There are zero material signs of an actual break. Literally zero. All you have are the same bullshit Barak Ravid Mossad asset style "leaks" in Israeli hasbara propaganda rags that are just empty words. Trump said he felt betrayed. Trump said Israel is too careless in Lebanon. Trump said he prefers Jolani. Trump said this, Trump said that, Trump said, he said, he said, SHUT THE FUCK UP. SHUT UP, YOU DUMB FUCKING CUNTS, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

And then you get the epic Trita Parsi quote-tweet: OHHH SHIIT HE REALLY GOING AT THE NOW, HE REALLY HUMILIATING NETANYAHU NOW, OMG THIS IS SO EPIC AND BASED GUYZ OMGGGG.

You fucking hack, how many times are you going to launder this fucking bullshit and go on Breaking Points and Tucker and go "GUYZ IM THE IRAN GURU, IM THE REAL RADICAL EPIC IRAN GURU. BTW EVERYONE IN IRAN HATES THE REGIME AND THEY ARE ON THE CUSP OF COLLAPSING WITH MORE CIA OPS AND SANCTIONS LULZ THATS THE BETTER STRATEGY TO DESTROY THEM."

You don't need to be a bullshit fake expert Trita Parsi style to see actual material signs of a break. You can use your own basic reading skills and find it. What are some real material signs? Has the Trump regime actually taken any practical material steps that shows there's a break?

The US is still providing Israel with all the funds and arms it needs, and no one has even raised the possibility of limiting that, let alone actually doing so.

The US is still providing Israel with all the diplomatic cover it needs in the UN and other international bodies, and in fact is aggressively destroying them to ensure Israel's safety. No one has even raised drawing that effort back, let alone actually doing it.

Israel Firsters run Trump's entire administration and policy positions on Israel and Iran. Witkoff and Kushner, whose first and only loyalty is to Israel, are still in place and sign off on everything that is done. No one has even raised the possibility of them being removed from the administration, let alone actually doing it.

The rest of the admin remains staffed by Israel lobbyists from FDD, WINEP And others, who devised the very war that was launched and are all still in place and not saying a single word, not resigning, not being fired, nothing is done to them. Literally nothing is done to them. OMG THIS IS A HUGE BREAK BETWEEN TRUMP AND ISRAEL OMG OMG TRITA PARSI SAID IT? DID YOU NOT SEE TRITA PARSI ON BREAKING POINTS SAYING IT?!?!??!

As Israel keeps violating the terms of the MoU by bombing Lebanon, zero material steps have been taken to stop it, let alone buying the deranged lunatic fantasy that it has to get to that point if Trump and the US admin actually wanted it to stop. No limiting of arms, funds, diplomatic cover, not even withdrawing its own forces, no firings of Israel lobbyists, no resignations, nothing. There is literally nothing.

They are so confident and gleeful about the stupidity of hacks like Trita Parsi that they don't even bother making their fake deception bullshit convincing by doing some fake firings and resignations. No, they're fully confident that the Koch and Soros funded pseudo-radical Quincy hacks will launder it for them, using the credibility they built up whining about "OMG THE OVERTLY NEOCON WING OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS SO BAD, BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE AWESOME AND EPIC".

Do you know what would happen beyond these basic elementary material provable signs of an actual break, if there actually was one?

The entire Israel lobby Zionist network, its vast apparatus that spans every media outlet from right to liberal "left", with all its think tank fronts and legions of paid hacks, Republican and Democrat, and the entire establishments of both parties, would start an all-out total war on Trump and end him in a day. They would end his entire presidency in a single day. Impeachment, 25th amendment to get the Thiel-Palantir Mossad asset Vance in there, it would happen in 24 hours. You fucking idiots. And instead there's total silence. Just a few stray words here and there, nothing against Trump directly, Levin doing his typical performative whining that he did in all the previous rounds of the deception campaign.

But no material concrete action taken against Trump by anyone in the Zionist lobby. Nothing. Zero.

There are literally zero signs of a break between Trump and Israel, and yet the entire alt-media almost is laundering it with glee. OMG THIS IS SO EPIC, TRITA PARSI SAID IT THIS SO EPIC.

Don't believe your own lying eyes and basic reality that you can verify for yourself, instead believe that fucking hack Trita Parsi. Utterly insane.

[Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald]

Last year, Netanyahu and the Trump WH directed its "former" IDF intel operative at Axios and CNN, @BarakRavid, to repeatedly announce there was a huge "rift" between the two leaders because Trump wouldn't let Israel attack Iran.

Many if not most believed there was some truth to that: that Trump wanted a deal, not a war, with Iran (and I must count myself among those), but @zei_squirrel insisted repeatedly that it was all a ruse to deceive Iran into complacency so that the US/Israel could attack while Iran thought diplomacy was real. Zei's analysis was correct.

Zei again argues that there is still no real rift between the US and Israel, that nothing has fundamentally changed in the relationship, and that Trump could (and quite possibly will) just go back to war with Iran when the political and economic conditions are more favorable. Worth reading:

[Brutal Truth Bombs @FORTRESSMAXXING]

Iran smashing America and Israel is similar to Meiji Japan smashing Tsarist Russia in 1905.

A lot of future Sun Yat Sens and Mao Zedongs will be created from this.

I'd go further and say it's even more impressive. Japan had British assistance and had much more parity with Russia. Iran did this all on its own at massive spending, diplomatic, economic, media, military hardware, and political disadvantages.

[Alon Mizrahi @alon_mizrahi]

They pushed the US to war with Iran for years for their messianic expansionist domination-addiction mental illness; they finally succeeded; the US lost the war and a big chunk of its international image (not much of which survived their Gaza Holocaust, Lebanon genocide and West Bank apartheid and ethnic cleansing plus Iraq war); they blame the US, and turn on its leaders

And they claim, with a straight face, that they have absolutely no idea why anyone would not adore them

[Esfandyar Batmanghelidj @yarbatman]

This messaging is so frustrating and self-defeating.

If this diplomatic opening leads to Iran permanently ending hostilities with the U.S., that is a tremendous gain for U.S. national security and for U.S. power globally. The MOU envisions a transformative shift in U.S.-Iran relations towards mutual engagement.

The U.S. would be able to engage economically with what would ordinarily be a G20 economy. And the U.S. will no longer have to spend blood and treasure trying to maintain security in the Middle East through force, fighting endless wars in the region.

[Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz]

Reality, Not Wishful Thinking, Has Finally Returned to U.S. Policy on Iran

It may have taken a long, costly, and complicated conflict, but the United States appears to have arrived at a conclusion that should have been evident from the start: Iran's missile program is not negotiable because it sits at the very core of the regime's security doctrine.

For years, some "experts" entertained the possibility that sufficient military pressure could compel Tehran to abandon the capabilities it views as essential to its deterrence strategy. The war demonstrated the limits of that assumption. Iran was never going to dismantle the missile arsenal that it regards as its primary defense against militarily superior adversaries.

The same reality applies to the Strait of Hormuz. Calls to permanently secure freedom of navigation through military force underestimated a basic geopolitical fact: geography cannot be defeated. As long as Iran occupies the northern shore of the Gulf and controls access to one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints, it will retain the ability to threaten regional shipping during times of crisis. Military power can mitigate that threat, but it cannot eliminate it.

Ultimately, the conflict reinforced a more fundamental point. While Iran presents a range of regional challenges, there is only one threat that can truly alter the strategic balance of the Middle East and directly challenge the global nonproliferation regime: a nuclear weapon.

Reasonable people can ask whether such a prolonged conflict was necessary to reach this conclusion. Yet it is better to recognize strategic realities late than never at all. Before events spiraled completely out of control, the US administration stepped back from maximalist objectives and returned to a more measured and realistic approach.

The emerging policy reflects an important shift, from attempting to solve every aspect of the Iran problem through force to focusing on the challenge that matters most. Effective strategy requires distinguishing between threats that can be managed and threats that cannot be tolerated. Iran's regional influence and missile capabilities belong to the first category; a nuclear-armed Iran belongs to the second.

This is precisely why any future negotiations on Iran's nuclear program must be led by technical experts rather than political slogans. The objective should not be a symbolic agreement or a temporary pause, but a comprehensive framework that closes every credible pathway to a nuclear weapon. The lesson of the past two decades is clear: durable nonproliferation agreements are built on rigorous verification, intrusive inspections, and realistic assessments of technical capabilities, not on assumptions about political intentions. If diplomacy is to succeed where conflict has failed, it must focus relentlessly on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon while recognizing the limits of what can realistically be achieved in other areas.

#IranWar‌

[Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz]

This may be one of the few issues on which I disagree with my friend @AliVaez .

Iran undoubtedly faces serious challenges. Its economy remains fragile, public trust in the government is limited, and structural problems continue to weigh on the system. But all of these challenges must be measured against a simple and unavoidable fact: the regime survived.

It survived a war against two military powers that openly sought to weaken it, eliminate key figures in its leadership, and impose unprecedented military pressure. Iran endured sustained attacks, absorbed significant losses, and yet ultimately emerged not as a collapsed state but as a negotiating partner for the United States.

Even more remarkably, the war ended without regime change, without the dismantlement of Iran's core capabilities, and without the regional transformation that many of its advocates had predicted. Instead, the conflict exposed a widening gap between expectations and reality.

Today, Iran finds itself in a position few anticipated at the outset of the war. Gulf Arab states are once again engaging with Tehran. The so-called "Axis of Resistance," which many observers declared finished, has demonstrated greater resilience than expected. And Iran has reinforced its image as a regional power capable of threatening critical arteries of the global economy whenever tensions escalate.

This does not mean Iran won in every respect. It suffered real military, economic, and political costs. But strategic outcomes are measured against objectives. If one goes back and reads the statements made by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu at the beginning of the campaign, it becomes clear that the outcome fell far short of the ambitions that were publicly articulated.

The tragic irony is that a strategy designed to weaken the Islamic Republic may have ultimately strengthened it. A regime that entered the conflict burdened by economic distress and growing domestic pressures emerged with renewed deterrence, greater international relevance, and a growing expectation that Washington has little appetite for repeating such a confrontation anytime soon.

For that reason, despite all of its internal vulnerabilities, Iran may well be the biggest strategic beneficiary of this war. Not because it solved its problems, but because it survived an effort that was supposed to fundamentally alter its position, and emerged more resilient than many expected.

This is the sad truth unfortunately.

[Hala Jaber @HalaJaber]

Trump is once again in full “nobody does it better than me” mode.

Fine. He has talked the talk. Now let’s see him walk the walk.

The next few days in Lebanon, & Friday especially, are where the real test begins.

“Peace” is not the announcement. Peace is what survives after the signatures, when reality gets a vote.

[Shehbaz Sharif @CMShehbaz]

Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.

The official signing ceremony will be on Friday, 19 June in Switzerland.

We would like to thank the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran for their commitment to finding a diplomatic solution to the conflict. We would also like to extend our sincere appreciation to our brothers in this mediation effort, the great leadership of State of Qatar, for their support in reaching this agreement. I would also especially thank the visionary leadership of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Republic of Türkiye for their immense contributions in this regard.

With the agreement now in place, mediators will facilitate a series of meetings this week. These pre-implementation discussions will lay the foundation for the technical talks and the official signing ceremony.

@realDonaldTrump
@JDVance
@SecRubio
@SteveWitkoff
@SEPeaceMissions
@drpezeshkian
@mb_ghalibaf
@araghchi

[Brutal Truth Bombs @FORTRESSMAXXING]

We need to be less "pro-Palestine" and more anti-Israel.

Keir Starmer's British regime is "pro Palestine," just as Donald Trumps "anti Iraq War." These positions are no longer radical as they were in the past, increasingly meaningless.

More litmus tests and purity checks!

[Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz]

This is how Netanyahu's Iran doctrine collapsedFor years,

Netanyahu built his political identity around the image of "Mr. Iran," the leader who argued that only pressure, deterrence and force could stop the regime in Tehran.

A long series of impressive tactical achievements ultimately led to a resounding strategic failure.

My Article @IsraelHayomEng

https://t.co/Z15NdcqJCS

[Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz]

It is also important to acknowledge that there are people whose entire careers depend on the continuation of the confrontation with Iran.

Admitting that this strategy has failed would inevitably force a reckoning, not only with the collapse of a long-held policy concept, but also with the fact that their own professional future may suddenly become uncertain.

That is why many of them will continue arguing that “just a little more pressure” would have worked; that there is always one more idea to topple the regime; that Iran is supposedly on the verge of economic collapse; that its oil infrastructure is about to fail; that one more strike, one more round of sanctions, one more covert campaign will finally break the system.

But these arguments avoid the central lesson that should already be obvious: there is no purely kinetic solution to the problem called Iran.

#Iran
#iran

[Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش @citrinowicz]

It’s hard to overstate how deeply Netanyahu views this moment as a possible personal and political defeat. A U.S.–Iran agreement under Trump would be a major blow to him mainly diplomatically, but above all politically.

For years, Netanyahu built his political identity around being “Mr. Iran,” the leader who insisted that only pressure, deterrence, and force could stop the Iranian regime. And now, after multiple rounds of operational successes but one resounding strategic failure, and after finally succeeding in drawing the United States into direct confrontation with Iran, he may be forced to accept an agreement that not only legitimizes the very regime he sought to weaken, but also exposes the collapse of his long-standing Iran doctrine.

His approach was based on the belief that more pressure, more military power, and tighter coordination between Israel and the United States would eventually either force Iran into submission or destabilize the regime itself. Instead, the result has been a more radicalized, more resilient, and more dangerous Iran, one that even Washington now hesitates to confront militarily again.

If this confrontation ends with an agreement, an even bigger strategic question emerges: what future American president would be willing to commit U.S. forces to another major Middle Eastern conflict after seeing the political and military costs of this one?

Netanyahu had what may have been his greatest opportunity to prove his central strategic theory: that a close Israeli-American military partnership could fundamentally reshape Iran and perhaps even threaten the regime’s survival. By every indication, that assumption failed.

Against this backdrop, reports of a tense conversation between Trump and Netanyahu become much easier to understand. They also help explain the extraordinary level of pressure now coming from Jerusalem, and the extent to which Netanyahu is trying to persuade, or pressure, the administration not to move toward a deal with Tehran.

The bottom line is that a U.S.–Iran agreement would not only signal the failure of the military confrontation Netanyahu pushed for, but also the collapse of the broader strategic doctrine he has championed since entering Israeli politics, all on the eve of what could be the most critical election of his career.

In that sense, the next Israel’s leadership need to learn the fundamental lessons of this war. More than ever, this conflict demonstrates the urgent need for Israel to develop a different long-term strategy for dealing with Iran and especially to understand the following:

Israel’s confrontation with Iran will not bring normalization with the Arab world, nor will it resolve Israel’s most fundamental security challenges, first and foremost, the Palestinian issue.

The belief that regime change in Iran would transform Israel’s position in the Middle East was always detached from reality. In fact, the consistent opposition of Gulf leaders and major Arab states to further escalation against Iran has demonstrated this repeatedly throughout the conflict.

Israel will not be able to use the “Iran card” as a substitute for addressing the core political issues shaping the region. Anyone arguing that military confrontation with Iran alone can unlock normalization is mistaken and, more importantly, misleading others about the strategic reality of the Middle East.

Because despite the undeniable tactical and operational achievements of the campaign, this failure may ultimately leave Israel facing a more dangerous strategic reality, one that has not fundamentally improved its position in the Middle East.

#IranWar‌

[Alireza Salimi @AR_Salimii]

امروز که خبر مربوط به تمایل و اقدام اسراییل و امریکا به بازگرداندن محمود احمدی‌نژاد به قدرت را خواندم به یادِ یک مطالعه علمی در حوزه بین‌رشته‌ای عصب‌شناسی سیاسی (Political Neuroscience) که در ادبیات علمی به آن عصب‌سیاست یا نوروپالیتیکس (Neuropolitics) هم گفته می‌شود افتادم، که اتفاقا محمود احمدی‌نژاد هم نقش مهمی در آن مطالعه داشت.

موسسه تحقیقاتی اف کی اف (FKF Applied Research) در یک پژوهش مشترک با دانشمندان دانشگاه یو سی ال ای (UCLA)، گروهی از افراد با سوگیری‌های شدید سیاسی و مذهبی از جمله روزنامه نگارانی مثل جفری گلدبرگ (Jeffrey Goldberg) و فعالان یهودی آمریکایی طرفدار اسرائیل را زیر دستگاه تصویربرداری مغزی اف ام آر آی (fMRI) قرار دادند. هدف این بود که واکنش ناخودآگاه ذهن این افراد هنگام مواجهه با تصاویر رهبران جنجالی جهان سنجیده شود. دانشمندان انتظار داشتند هنگام نمایشِ عکسِ چهره‌های رادیکال و متخاصم مانند محمود احمدی‌نژاد، بخش‌های مربوط به ترس انزجار و درد در مغز شرکت‌کنندگان فعال شود. اما نتیجه اسکن‌ها تمام فرضیات را به هم ریخت و میان تمام شرکت‌کنندگان یهودی طرفدار اسرائیل یک الگوی یکسان ثبت شد.

دستگاه نشان داد با دیدن عکس احمدی‌نژاد ناگهان مرکز پاداش و لذت مغز یا همان ونترال استریاتوم (Ventral Striatum) در ذهن آن‌ها به شدت روشن می‌شود! روان‌پزشکانِ این پروژه از جمله جاشوا فریدمن (Joshua Freedman) با تحلیل این رفتار گروهی نتیجه گرفتند که ذهن انسان‌های ایدئولوژیک به طرز عجیبی به وجود یک دشمن اعتیاد دارد. تندروی افراطی دشمن برای مغز این افراد یک پاداش بزرگ محسوب می‌شود چون با هر سخنرانی یا موضع‌گیری تند از سمت او باورهای درونی، مظلوم‌نمایی تاریخی، و حس نیاز به انسجام گروهی آن‌ها تایید و تغذیه می‌شود. مغز آن‌ها با دیدن تصویر دشمن دوپامین (Dopamine) ترشح می‌کند چون در ناخودآگاه خود حس حقانیت می‌کنند.

شاید پیش‌فرضِ پژوهشگرانِ این مطالعه در خصوصِ متخاصم بودنِ احمدی‌نژاد خالی از اشتباه نبوده باشد!

برای مطالعه بیشتر میتوانید به این کتاب مراجعه کنید؛

Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience
Authors:
Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld

[Barry Rosen @brosen1501]

As a former American hostage in Iran from 1979-81 — and as someone who has spent decades observing Iranian history, politics, and culture — I fear we are approaching another catastrophic U.S.-Iran war.

The danger is no longer theoretical. It may be imminent. Both Washington and Tehran are continuing down a military path while clinging to hardline, maximalist demands. The U.S. insists Iran dismantle its nuclear and missile capabilities while threatening renewed strikes. Iran refuses to surrender what it sees as sovereign defenses and continues to use the Strait of Hormuz as strategic leverage over the global economy.

Neither side appears willing to step back first. This is the terrifying reality: there is currently no clear off-ramp. Military escalation has created its own momentum. The Trump administration entered this confrontation without a coherent long-term strategy, apparently assuming pressure and force alone would produce capitulation. Instead, Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz has grown, oil markets are destabilized, and the risk of miscalculation increases by the day.

Some scholars describe moments like this as a modern “Thucydides Trap” — when fear, pride, miscalculation, and rising confrontation make conflict seem almost unavoidable even when war could devastate both sides. Whether or not that term fully applies here, history shows how nations can slide into wars neither truly knows how to end.

I lived through one U.S.-Iran disaster. I do not want to see another. Diplomacy is not weakness or appeasement. It is now the only realistic path away from a wider regional war that could spiral beyond anyone’s control.

[محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf @mb_ghalibaf]

The world stands at the cusp of a new order.

As President Xi said “The transformation unseen in a century is accelerating across the globe,” and I emphasize that the Iranian nation’s 70-day resistance has accelerated this transformation.

The future belongs to the Global South.