Iran War. . . USA Up 2-0 in the First Period

[Ron in Regina]

Is anyone in Hezbollah sought by international courts for genocide and crimes against humanity? Why or why not?

Well, that’s awfully specific as a loaded question. I’m gonna go with, “Israel retaliated before the international courts could posture these” for $400 Alex.”

(YouTube & Celebrity Jeopardy!: Robin Williams, Catherine Zeta-Jones & Sean Connery)

Anyway, Lebanon nor Hezbollahstan (or Iran) aren’t an ICC member and have not granted the court jurisdiction. The International Criminal Court (ICC) can only prosecute individuals if the crimes are committed on the territory of a member state, by a national of a member state.

While ICC warrants target individuals associated with various conflicts (e.g., in Palestine, Ukraine, and Sudan), its capacity is limited, and it prioritizes cases where it has clear territorial or UN backing..

Knowing where you’re trying to go with this, ther are 57 member states in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 56 of which are UN member states. This large Islamic bloc, often allied with the Non-Aligned Movement, forms a near-automatic voting majority. Their collective focus significantly impacts the disproportionate number of accusations and resolutions brought against Israel.

The OIC, Arab League, and their allies make up a significant portion of the UN General Assembly. This structural reality allows them to introduce and pass resolutions targeting Israel far more easily than they can for any other nation on earth. This means OIC nations make up slightly more than 29% of the total UN membership, serving as the second-largest intergovernmental organization globally behind the UN itself, but that’s probably just a coincidence.

http://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/jurisdictional-limits-prevent-icc-warrants-for-iran-and-hezbollah-leaders/

 

[Ron in Regina]

Anywho, back to the MOU towards something or another towards something else that might eventually lead to something that leads to peace, etc…President Donald Trump threatened Iran with fresh attacks if it did not stick to a deal to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, even as JD Vance struck an optimistic tone during talks with Iranian officials in Switzerland aimed at reaching a broader peace agreement.

So kind of a disposable-mediocre-cop/batshit-crazy-panicking-cop (that doesn’t care about the midterm elections). “In a phone interview with Fox News’s Trey Yingst, Trump threatened to attack Iran and take over the Strait of Hormuz if Tehran interfered with passage through the waterway.

“You close [the Strait of Hormuz] and you won’t have a country,” Trump said he told Iranian officials, Yingst posted on X. “You won’t even make it back to your fu*king country.”

Meanwhile, Vance struck a very different tone in Switzerland as he sat down with Iranian negotiators — for what has been dubbed the Lake Lucerne Summit — to kick off a 60-day process intended to work out the details of a broader peace deal.

“A memorandum of understanding — which Trump signed at the Palace of Versailles in France last week — puts the onus on the United States to deliver early, including by lifting sanctions, freeing billions in frozen assets and dismantling a naval blockade of Iran’s ports. The two sides established a two-month timeline to flesh out the details and settle issues that have plagued negotiators for years.

Iran promised to let shipping flow freely through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for transporting fuel whose closure has increased oil and gas prices. The deal also outlined an end to military operations against Iranian proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is a core issue for Iran and requires the Trump administration to pressure Israel to halt attacks on Hezbollah there — even though Israel is not a signatory to the agreement and has denounced it.”

Trump threatens Iran over Hormuz as JD Vance holds peace talks — The Washington Post

Trump’s warning underscores persistent tensions even as Vance said in Switzerland that he hoped Washington and Tehran would “turn over a new leaf” in their relationship.

apple.news

 

[petros]

Well, that’s awfully specific as a loaded question. I’m gonna go with, “Israel retaliated before the international courts could posture these” for $400 Alex.”

Is it loaded? You know the answer is no. So say no.

Anyway, Lebanon nor Hezbollahstan (or Iran) aren’t an ICC member and have not granted the court jurisdiction. The International Criminal Court (ICC) can only prosecute individuals if the crimes are committed on the territory of a member state, by a national of a member ststate.

Where is Hezbollahstan are you really going to nationalize them by adding stan?

Neither is Israel an ICC member. Terrorist regimes usually aren't but the warrants are very real. Iranians with warrants 0. Lebanese with warrants 0 but Israelis....warrants.

While ICC warrants target individuals associated with various conflicts (e.g., in Palestine, Ukraine, and Sudan), its capacity is limited, and it prioritizes cases where it has clear territorial or UN backing..

Knowing where you’re trying to go with this, ther are 57 member states in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 56 of which are UN member states. This large Islamic bloc, often allied with the Non-Aligned Movement, forms a near-automatic voting majority. Their collective focus significantly impacts the disproportionate number of accusations and resolutions brought against Israel.

And zero warrants for crimes against humanity. Israelis Yuuup. Why?

View attachment 34843
The OIC, Arab League, and their allies make up a significant portion of the UN General Assembly. This structural reality allows them to introduce and pass resolutions targeting Israel far more easily than they can for any other nation on earth. This means OIC nations make up slightly more than 29% of the total UN membership, serving as the second-largest intergovernmental organization globally behind the UN itself, but that’s probably just a coincidence.

Still only Israelis packing warrants. Why is that Ron? Victims of an antisemitic system? its the holocaust all over again?

http://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/jurisdictional-limits-prevent-icc-warrants-for-iran-and-hezbollah-leaders/

See above. Don't be a fool.

America's promises to brutal dictator run Arab nations went unfulfilled on the behest of Israel, America can't defend Israel and Israel can't defend itself.

Closing Hormuz puts nations who need it at the mercy of Israel. Why does Israel want the strait closed?

Read up and We'll discuss victimhood, the MOU and Greater Israel.

Question: Is Isreal refusing to abandon captured portion of Hezbollah oops Lebanon?

Yes, Israel is currently refusing to fully withdraw from certain captured or controlled territories in southern Lebanon, maintaining a "security zone" or buffer zone despite ceasefires and international calls for withdrawal.09729abe49f5

Current Situation (as of mid-2026)
Israel conducted a ground invasion of southern Lebanon in late 2024 amid conflict with Hezbollah. It largely withdrew under a US-brokered November 2024 ceasefire (tied to UN Security Council Resolution 1701), but retained control of five strategic border points inside Lebanon and later expanded or held additional areas.08bd8b

Recent reports indicate Israel controls roughly 600+ square kilometers (hundreds of square miles) in southern Lebanon, including areas up to or beyond the Litani River in some operations. Officials describe this as a "security zone" cleared of residents and Hezbollah infrastructure, with no immediate plans for full withdrawal.a7f172

Israeli officials (including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich) have publicly stated that troops will remain "indefinitely" or "for years" until Hezbollah is fully disarmed and security threats are eliminated, even amid pressure from the US or others. They have rejected full withdrawal despite ceasefire extensions and agreements.040baa

This stance follows partial withdrawals (e.g., repositioning along the Blue Line by early 2025, with exceptions), but Israel has expanded or held positions amid ongoing tensions, strikes, and new operations into 2026.55a054

Context and Background
UN Resolution 1701 (2006) and the 2024 ceasefire called for Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in parallel with Hezbollah moving north of the Litani River, Lebanese Armed Forces/UNIFIL deployment, and demilitarization of the south. Israel views Hezbollah's continued presence and capabilities as violations, justifying its hold on territory.b06ad2

Israel frames the retained areas as necessary "buffer zones" for border security after attacks from Hezbollah. Critics (including Lebanon, Hezbollah, some UN voices, and rights groups) call it occupation or forced displacement.4f5619

The situation remains fluid with fragile truces, sporadic clashes, and regional involvement (e.g., Iran, US). Deadlines for withdrawal (e.g., February 2025 extensions) have passed without full compliance.b7eff5

In short, Israel has not abandoned the captured/controlled land and senior leaders explicitly reject doing so at present. Developments can shift quickly with diplomacy or escalation. For the latest, check reliable news sources.

No Israel. Know Peace.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Where is Hezbollahstan are you really going to nationalize them by adding stan?

Where is Palestinistan and what are its agreed upon borders or boundaries? Anyway, I’m sure Lebanon is concerned about a Hezbollahistan like India is with a Khalistan, etc…

Neither is Israel an ICC member. Terrorist regimes usually aren't but the warrants are very real. Iranians with warrants 0. Lebanese with warrants 0 but Israelis....warrants.

The OIC, Arab League, and their allies make up a significant portion of the UN General Assembly. This structural reality allows them to introduce and pass resolutions targeting Israel far more easily than they can for any other nation on earth. This means OIC nations make up slightly more than 29% of the total UN membership, serving as the second-largest intergovernmental organization globally behind the UN itself…

Still only Israelis packing warrants.

While ICC warrants target individuals associated with various conflicts (e.g., in Palestine, Ukraine, and Sudan), its capacity is limited, and it prioritizes cases where it has clear territorial or UN backing..

Shockingly shocking…not.

Closing Hormuz puts nations who need it at the mercy of Israel. Why does Israel want the strait closed?

Yes, why would Israel possibly want the Strait of Hormuz closed when it’s subject to the same deeply integrated global economy as every other nation? Consequently, it suffers from the same inflationary pressures, slowed economic growth, and heightened geopolitical instability caused by the crisis.

Still only Israelis packing warrants. Why is that Ron? Victims of an antisemitic system? its the holocaust all over again?

Still only Israelis packing warrants. Why is that Ron? Victims of an antisemitic system? its the holocaust all over again?

(YouTube & Sesame Street - One of these things)

Then there’s Dar al-Islam (the territory of Islam), but we’ve gone over that in days past in other threads. The core concept is that any territory once conquered by Muslims, or brought under Islamic governance, is considered a perpetual religious endowment (waqf) for all generations of Muslims like Spain or much of India.

 

[petros]

Where is Palestinistan and what are its agreed upon borders or boundaries? Anyway, I’m sure Lebanon is concerned about a Hezbollahistan like India is with a Khalistan, etc…

Pre 67. As written and agreed upon by the antisemitic system.

Shockingly shocking…not.

Yes, why would Israel possibly want the Strait of Hormuz closed when it’s subject to the same deeply integrated into the global economy as every other nation? Consequently, it suffers from the same inflationary pressures, slowed economic growth, and heightened geopolitical instability caused by the crisis.
View attachment 34851

Why is it closed? America or Israel?

View attachment 34852
(YouTube & Sesame Street - One of these things)

Finish my post.

America's promises to brutal dictator run Arab nations went unfulfilled on the behest of Israel, America can't defend Israel and Israel can't defend itself.

Closing Hormuz puts nations who need it at the mercy of Israel. Why does Israel want the strait closed?

Read up and We'll discuss victimhood, the MOU and Greater Israel.

Question: Is Isreal refusing to abandon captured portion of Hezbollah oops Lebanon?

Yes, Israel is currently refusing to fully withdraw from certain captured or controlled territories in southern Lebanon, maintaining a "security zone" or buffer zone despite ceasefires and international calls for withdrawal.09729abe49f5

Current Situation (as of mid-2026)

Israel conducted a ground invasion of southern Lebanon in late 2024 amid conflict with Hezbollah. It largely withdrew under a US-brokered November 2024 ceasefire (tied to UN Security Council Resolution 1701), but retained control of five strategic border points inside Lebanon and later expanded or held additional areas.08bd8b

Recent reports indicate Israel controls roughly 600+ square kilometers (hundreds of square miles) in southern Lebanon, including areas up to or beyond the Litani River in some operations. Officials describe this as a "security zone" cleared of residents and Hezbollah infrastructure, with no immediate plans for full withdrawal.a7f172

Israeli officials (including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich) have publicly stated that troops will remain "indefinitely" or "for years" until Hezbollah is fully disarmed and security threats are eliminated, even amid pressure from the US or others. They have rejected full withdrawal despite ceasefire extensions and agreements.040baa

This stance follows partial withdrawals (e.g., repositioning along the Blue Line by early 2025, with exceptions), but Israel has expanded or held positions amid ongoing tensions, strikes, and new operations into 2026.55a054

Context and Background

UN Resolution 1701 (2006) and the 2024 ceasefire called for Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in parallel with Hezbollah moving north of the Litani River, Lebanese Armed Forces/UNIFIL deployment, and demilitarization of the south. Israel views Hezbollah's continued presence and capabilities as violations, justifying its hold on territory.b06ad2

Israel frames the retained areas as necessary "buffer zones" for border security after attacks from Hezbollah. Critics (including Lebanon, Hezbollah, some UN voices, and rights groups) call it occupation or forced displacement.4f5619

The situation remains fluid with fragile truces, sporadic clashes, and regional involvement (e.g., Iran, US). Deadlines for withdrawal (e.g., February 2025 extensions) have passed without full compliance.b7eff5

In short, Israel has not abandoned the captured/controlled land and senior leaders explicitly reject doing so at present. Developments can shift quickly with diplomacy or escalation. For the latest, check reliable news sources.

No Israel. Know Peace.

Maybe Hezbollah needs to take Northern Israel as a buffer zone if Israel can't stay the fuck out of Lebanon?

 

[petros]

 

[petros]

 

[petros]

Israel is the problem. Not Hamas, not Hezbollah and not the IRGC.

It's all on fascist empirical Israel.

They are not an ally or "our friends".

 

[Ron in Regina]

Israel is the problem. Not Hamas, not Hezbollah and not the IRGC.

It's all on fascist empirical Israel.

They are not an ally or "our friends".

Ok. The Middle East would still be an area of deep, structural conflict even if Israel did not exist. While the Israeli-Palestinian and broader Arab-Israeli disputes are major sources of regional friction, the region's geopolitical, sectarian, and resource-based conflicts are largely independent of them, but I hear what you’re claiming.

Israel is the problem. Not Hamas, not Hezbollah and not the IRGC.

The desire by Iran and its network of allied militias—often referred to as the "Axis of Resistance"—to project power and establish dominance over the region is a core driver. For instance, Iran's broader strategy to export its revolution predates modern conflicts and seeks to challenge the influence of Western powers and Sunni Gulf states alike.

It's all on fascist empirical Israel.

The struggle for regional hegemony between Shia-majority Iran and Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia is a defining feature of Middle Eastern instability. This ideological and strategic contest—fueled by control over energy resources, trade routes, and spheres of influence—has played out directly through devastating proxy wars and civil conflicts in places like Yemen and Syria, which have no connection to Israel, but yeah, ok.

They are not an ally or "our friends".

Who in the muddled east are a real ally or “our friends?” If the “Israel/Israeli/Jew” problem was resolved or removed, the fundamental geostrategic, religious, and political competitions within the region would suddenly just go away then?

Many of the region's deadliest recent conflicts—such as the Syrian Civil War, the ongoing fallout in Iraq, and the conflicts in Lebanon and Yemen—have been driven by internal governance failures, economic collapse, sectarianism, and the rise of transnational extremist groups like ISIS, but are these also the fault of fascist empirical Israel too?

In the modern era, sticking to post-WW2, historical scapegoating is often displaced onto the State of Israel it would seem, as they are different that their neighbours and thus conveniently available to point out their ‘otherness.’

The Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability are frequently amplified or oversimplified by various actors, resulting in the singling out and demonization of the Jewish state for broader geopolitical problems, but the only way to prove this many would be to witness the aftermath of Israel’s existence terminating, so it is what it is, because Israel still exists at this point.

 

[petros]

Ok. The Middle East would still be an area of deep, structural conflict even if Israel did not exist.

Are you guessing?

While the Israeli-Palestinian and broader Arab-Israeli disputes are major sources of regional friction, the region's geopolitical, sectarian, and resource-based conflicts are largely independent of them, but I hear what you’re claiming.

Fight why? Over what? China's or India's love and affection?

The desire by Iran and its network of allied militias—often referred to as the "Axis of Resistance"—to project power and establish dominance over the region is a core driver.

Project power over who? The Arabs without US bases there to protect Israel or do you think US would still be there to stop the Soviet Union's influence in the Middle East like it was still 1965?

For instance, Iran's broader strategy to export its revolution predates modern conflicts and seeks to challenge the influence of Western powers and Sunni Gulf states alike.

Was it like that before the Shah?

The struggle for regional hegemony between Shia-majority Iran and Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia is a defining feature of Middle Eastern instability. This ideological and strategic contest—fueled by control over energy resources, trade routes, and spheres of influence—has played out directly through devastating proxy wars and civil conflicts in places like Yemen and Syria, which have no connection to Israel, but yeah, ok.

Those would still exist with no Israel and Americans to defend Israel?

Who in the muddled east are a real ally or “our friends?” If the “Israel/Israeli/Jew” problem was resolved or removed, the fundamental geostrategic, religious, and political competitions within the region would suddenly just go away then?

Ever heard of Turkey. You know the one in NATO? Not a friend or ally?

View attachment 34853
Many of the region's deadliest recent conflicts—such as the Syrian Civil War, the ongoing fallout in Iraq, and the conflicts in Lebanon and Yemen—have been driven by internal governance failures, economic collapse, sectarianism, and the rise of transnational extremist groups like ISIS, but are these also the fault of fascist empirical Israel too?

The Iraq where Catholic and Muzzie lived side by side for millennia? Same goes for Syria and the Christian Lebanon? How about Libya? Would it still have its socialist oil revenue sharing, free education and housing? Or no?

View attachment 34857
In the modern era, sticking to post-WW2, historical scapegoating is often displaced onto the State of Israel it would seem, as they are different that their neighbours and thus conveniently available to point out their ‘otherness.’ Different as in E European?
View attachment 34858
The Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability are frequently amplified or oversimplified by various actors, resulting in the singling out and demonization of the Jewish state for broader geopolitical problems, but the only way to prove this many would be to witness the aftermath of Israel’s existence terminating, so it is what it is, because Israel still exists at this point.

You don't think China or India would be there? Trading fairly and keeping peace?

Keep dreaming.

And most importantly. Would you still hate Muslims without Israeli hasbara teaching you to hate Muslims?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Are you guessing?

Fight why? Over what? China's or India's love and affection?

Project power over who? The Arabs without US bases there to protect Israel or do you think US would still be there to stop the Soviet Union's influence in the Middle East like it was still 1965?

Arab vs Persian. Sunni vs Shia. Iran vs Saudi Arabia. None are as ‘different’ as Jews to Muslims, but I’m sure it would be enough if Israel wasn’t there. Without the Jews, the Kurds or someone else could then be the focus.

Iran’s proxy strategy—known as its "forward defense" doctrine—is primarily rooted in projecting power, exporting its Islamic revolution, and countering Western and Sunni Arab influence. If Israel had never come into existence, I’m assuming Iran would still have its proxies across the Middle East to stir the pot to export their ‘revolution’ against someone or another.

Was it like that before the Shah?

Those would still exist with no Israel and Americans to defend Israel?

Yes, I believe they would. America didn’t sell any armament to Israel until into the ‘60’s and didn’t support them militarily until after Israel proved itself in 1967 on the six day war. It’s not like Iran and Israel are neighbours, but it’s Iran leading the charge against Israel (Jews are not Muslims) to circle the wagons as Shia are outnumbered by Sunni’s by a large margin.

Ever heard of Turkey. You know the one in NATO? Not a friend or ally?

I have vaguely heard of Turkey now that you mention it. It became a NATO member independent of Israel’s existence.

The Iraq where Catholic and Muzzie lived side by side for millennia? Same goes for Syria and the Christian Lebanon? How about Libya? Would it still have its socialist oil revenue sharing, free education and housing? Or no?

It was all “peace in the Middle East” for millennia until 1948 then? Is that what you’re saying here?

You don't think China or India would be there? Trading fairly and keeping peace?

Keep dreaming.

And most importantly. Would you still hate Muslims without Israeli hasbara teaching you to hate Muslims?

I don’t hate anyone. Don’t have the energy for it. The violence between Hezbollah and Israel has abated since late on Saturday. Security sources in Lebanon said Israel's last airstrike was on Saturday evening, and that the lull in violence was the longest since Hezbollah opened fire on Israel in support of Iran on March 2 although an Israeli drone could be heard over Beirut.

US and Iran make 'encouraging progress' at talks although tension remains — Reuters

The United States and Iran made "encouraging progress" at the first round of talks aimed at reaching a final peace deal, mediators said on Monday, although tension persisted over Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz.

apple.news

Iran will have one of its proxies, every week or two, for at least the next year or two, provoke a retaliatory reaction from Israel so that it can claim that the Americans via Israel are violating the MOU for negotiating leverage as this drags out for the next handful of years with the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz never going away.

 

[petros]

Arab vs Persian. Sunni vs Shia. Iran vs Saudi Arabia. None are as ‘different’ as Jews to Muslims, but I’m sure it would be enough if Israel wasn’t there. Without the Jews, the Kurds or someone else could then be the focus.

No Christians or real Jews in those countries prior to E Euro Zionists stealing land? Far out. It's was all war? America would still be pushing divide and conquer and arming one or the other or both? Sunni against Shia, Catholic against Protestant. What would the Sephardi be doing? Dishes?

Iran’s proxy strategy—known as its "forward defense" doctrine—is primarily rooted in projecting power, exporting its Islamic revolution, and countering Western and Sunni Arab influence. If Israel had never come into existence, I’m assuming Iran would still have its proxies across the Middle East to stir the pot to export their ‘revolution’ against someone or another.

Who would they be revolting against? Someone or another like Morrocans? Indonesians? Uzbekistan?

Yes, I believe they would. America didn’t sell any armament to Israel until into the ‘60’s and didn’t support them militarily until after Israel proved itself in 1967 on the six day war. It’s not like Iran and Israel are neighbours, but it’s Iran leading the charge against Israel (Jews are not Muslims) to circle the wagons as Shia are outnumbered by Sunni’s by a large margin.

What did they prove in 67 by attacking everyone including the US and Maxwell (Ghislaine's dad) stealing US nuke tech?? Proof that they went to the Soviets first and sold that nuke tech to the Soviets for arms panicking America? Why would E European Zionists go to the Soviets first? They love America?

I have vaguely heard of Turkey now that you mention it. It became a NATO member independent of Israel’s existence.

Apparently vaguely because Israel is the only "ally and friend" in the ME.

It was all “peace in the Middle East” for millennia until 1948 then? Is that what you’re saying here?

1913 but hey, you'll crack open a history web page someday right?

I don’t hate anyone. Don’t have the energy for it. The violence between Hezbollah and Israel has abated since late on Saturday. Security sources in Lebanon said Israel's last airstrike was on Saturday evening, and that the lull in violence was the longest since Hezbollah opened fire on Israel in support of Iran on March 2 although an Israeli drone could be heard over Beirut.

US and Iran make 'encouraging progress' at talks although tension remains — Reuters

The United States and Iran made "encouraging progress" at the first round of talks aimed at reaching a final peace deal, mediators said on Monday, although tension persisted over Lebanon and the Strait of Hormuz.

apple.news

Yeah you do. Its obvious.

Wow threats of Israel getting kicked off the US cash gravy train worked and not just the other nations who halted trade and cash long ago over genocide and empirical goals?

Iran will have one of its proxies, every week or two, for at least the next year or two, provoke a retaliatory reaction from Israel so that it can claim that the Americans via Israel are violating the MOU for negotiating leverage as this drags out for the next handful of years with the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz never going away.

You've seen the plans? Are you sure Israel won't be in civil war when the forced exit from Palestine begins.

Lucky for Israel Oct 7 happened and they avoided civil war and especially Bibi who'd be 2.5 years into a prison sentence at this point.

Which side of the Israeli civil war will the Iran proxies be on?

Which side will you be on? Team limp wristed Tel Aviv or team Jerusalem?

My guess team Tel Aviv cuz team Jerusalem is anti-Zionist and pro Palestinian.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Who would they be revolting against? Someone or another like Morrocans? Indonesians? Uzbekistan?

Iran is Shia & they are about 10% of Muslims in that neighbourhood. Iran wants to be the dominant entity in the neighbourhood. Who would they rally against if they didn’t have the Jews? The answer would be somebody else, right? Maybe the Kurds or the Shriners’s or whatever…but it would be happening.

 

[petros]

Iran is Shia & they are about 10% of Muslims in that neighbourhood. Iran wants to be the dominant entity in the neighbourhood. Who would they rally against if they didn’t have the Jews? The answer would be somebody else, right? Maybe the Kurds or the Shriners’s or whatever…but it would be happening.

Why would they? Would Saudis and their brutal dictator regime still have US bases? Who would Iranian Jews be backing?

 

[Ron in Regina]

Why would they? Would Saudis and their brutal dictator regime still have US bases? Who would Iranian Jews be backing?

If the Jews didn’t exist, or they were gone or whatever…

Arab vs Persian. Sunni vs Shia. Iran vs Saudi Arabia. None are as ‘different’ as Jews to Muslims, but I’m sure it would be enough if Israel wasn’t there. Without the Jews, the Kurds or someone else could then be the focus.

It would still be Iran/Shia vs Saudi Arabia/Sunni and would the 90% Sunni Middle East want to be piloted by the Iran/Shia dictating their policies etc…so Iran would have to go to the bigger tent (Muslims vs someone/something different) to spread their ‘revolution’ etc…

Yes, Saudi Arabia would still have American bases that they set up in exchange for…American protection from…from…whom? Saudi Arabia permits the U.S. military to operate out of its territory (primarily at Prince Sultan Air Base and King Fahd Air Base) largely in exchange for a security guarantee and defensive protection against Botswana Iran.

The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is fundamentally about regional hegemony, power, and ideological leadership, not Israel. While the Israeli-Arab dynamic often intersects with this rivalry, the core of the conflict is a decades-long struggle for dominance over the Middle East, control of global energy markets, and the leadership of the Islamic world…but that’s probably neither here nor there.

Anyway, Vice President JD Vance said Iran agreed to allow international inspections of its nuclear program, which would restore a safeguard from President Barack Obama’s deal with Tehran that President Donald Trump threw out.

“The Iranians threatened to walk out Sunday after Trump warned the U.S. may “hit Iran very hard again,” Vance said. But the negotiators stayed past 1 a.m. local time, and their team of technical experts was still present, Vance said.

“What we told the Iranians yesterday is when you guys engage in what us millennials might call trash talk, you can’t expect the president of the United States not to respond and not to correct the record,” Vance said. He denied that Trump’s threat threw “a wrench into the system?”

Vance says Iran agrees to nuclear inspections, as under Obama deal — The Washington Post

Conversations with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency could occur as soon as Monday, the vice president said, as negotiations continue in Switzerland.

apple.news

 

[petros]

If the Jews didn’t exist, or they were gone or whatever…

But they aren't and won't be. Persia is their second home. Did you know it was the king of Persia who financed the rebuilding of the second temple?

It would still be Iran/Shia vs Saudi Arabia/Sunni and would the 90% Sunni Middle East want to be piloted by the Iran/Shia dictating their policies etc…so Iran would have to go to the bigger tent (Muslims vs someone/something different) to spread their ‘revolution’ etc…

Would the IRA still be bombing the British if there were no Israel?

Yes, Saudi Arabia would still have American bases that they set up in exchange for…American protection from…from…whom? Saudi Arabia permits the U.S. military to operate out of its territory (primarily at Prince Sultan Air Base and King Fahd Air Base) largely in exchange for a security guarantee and defensive protection against Botswana Iran.

Why? Are you sure it wouldn't be Russia or China or maybe even India? Conjecture lots n lots of conjecture. What's it based? Hasbara?

The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran is fundamentally about regional hegemony, power, and ideological leadership, not Israel. While the Israeli-Arab dynamic often intersects with this rivalry, the core of the conflict is a decades-long struggle for dominance over the Middle East, control of global energy markets, and the leadership of the Islamic world…but that’s probably neither here nor there.

Struggle for dominance or because of the American presence in S A. You know America the ones who installed the Shah who used the Savak/CIA to brutally subjugate the population?

Anyway, Vice President JD Vance said Iran agreed to allow international inspections of its nuclear program, which would restore a safeguard from President Barack Obama’s deal with Tehran that President Donald Trump threw out.
View attachment 34861

On whose suggestion did Trump do that? Israel?

“The Iranians threatened to walk out Sunday after Trump warned the U.S. may “hit Iran very hard again,” Vance said. But the negotiators stayed past 1 a.m. local time, and their team of technical experts was still present, Vance said.

“What we told the Iranians yesterday is when you guys engage in what us millennials might call trash talk, you can’t expect the president of the United States not to respond and not to correct the record,” Vance said. He denied that Trump’s threat threw “a wrench into the system?”

Vance says Iran agrees to nuclear inspections, as under Obama deal — The Washington Post

Conversations with inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency could occur as soon as Monday, the vice president said, as negotiations continue in Switzerland.

apple.news

They did walk out. Why? Israel?

Looks like undefeated Israel is in for more ballistic missiles huh?

Maybe they should GTFO of Lebanon?

 

[petros]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

 

[Ron in Regina]

Would the IRA still be bombing the British if there were no Israel?

What? Are you tying PLO & IRA together and blaming Israel Zionists for the Irish British kerfuffle? Not sure what the stretch is here.

Saudi Arabia would still have American bases that they set up in exchange for…American protection from…from…whom? Saudi Arabia permits the U.S. military to operate out of its territory (primarily at Prince Sultan Air Base and King Fahd Air Base) largely in exchange for a security guarantee and defensive protection against Botswana Iran.

Why? Are you sure it wouldn't be Russia or China or maybe even India? Conjecture lots n lots of conjecture. What's it based? Hasbara?

Are you saying…what are you saying? That Saudi Arabia has American bases in its territory in exchange for protection from Russia or China or India? Have you tried to look up the reason behind Saudi Arabia having American military bases in its territory?

Pick your favourite search engine, and simply put in, “Why would Saudi Arabia allow American military bases in its territory?” & does it name China or India or Russia? Does it name anyone? Try it…’cuz you might be right…right?

Sometimes, things can happen that don’t tie back to Zionists controlling the world, even things that involve Jews or Israel or Zionists. I know it sounds crazy and it must be Hasbara but maybe the Jews aren’t the source of all the worlds evils.

Anyway, Vice President JD Vance said Iran agreed to allow international inspections of its nuclear program, which would restore a safeguard from President Barack Obama’s deal with Tehran that President Donald Trump threw out.

On whose suggestion did Trump do that? Israel?

Who in the Middle East specifically wanted Iran to have nuclear capabilities aside from the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria before he took his ball and went to a permanent retirement in Moscow? The current Syrian government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime, does not want Iran to achieve nuclear capabilities, but that’s just one country.

I’m not saying that Iran had nuclear weapons, or that it even wanted to have nuclear weapons (though it did have uranium enriched to about 60% but that was probably just for shits & giggles), but aside from the IRGC and its proxies…was anyone in favour of it happening? Why do you automatically jump to Israel here as if it’s opinion being the same as the rest of the Middle East demonizes it?

“The Iranians threatened to walk out Sunday after Trump warned the U.S. may “hit Iran very hard again,” Vance said. But the negotiators stayed past 1 a.m. local time, and their team of technical experts was still present, Vance said.

They did walk out. Why? Israel?

They (Iran) walked (briefly) to demonstrate that they’re in control now and will continue to be, using Botswana Israel as their scapegoat to divide and conquer while making Trump look weak and inept leading to the American Midterm elections (that Trump doesn’t care about). Yes, this time this is just my opinion here.

Iran will have one of its proxies, every week or two, for at least the next year or two, provoke a retaliatory reaction from Israel so that it can claim that the Americans via Israel are violating the MOU for negotiating leverage as this drags out for the next handful of years with the threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz never going away.

Anyway, it’s bad form to threaten a nations diplomatic delegates, and perhaps that had some bearing on the Iranian diplomatic delegates walking away even if only briefly after being directly threatened by US president Trump? Something about not having a country to return to? Do you think that could have a bearing on the Iranian reaction in Switzerland (?) or it’s just gotta be Israel ‘cuz Israel (?) and anything else is just Hasbara?

Also, “U.S. Vice President JD Vance said talks with Iranian officials ‌in Switzerland had laid a good foundation for a final peace deal, but Iran denied it had begun discussions on its nuclear program or agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back to the country.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Tuesday Iranian officials had not held a meeting with IAEA chief Rafael Grossi in Switzerland and had no plans for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to inspect Iran's damaged nuclear facilities.”

Trump insists Iran has agreed to nuclear inspections — Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump insisted on Tuesday that Iran has agreed to allow nuclear inspections long into the future, despite statements from ‌Iran that it has not done so.

apple.news

Iran says won't allow UN inspectors at bombed nuclear sites — AFP News

Iran said Tuesday that the UN's nuclear watchdog will not be able to inspect key nuclear sites bombed by the US and Israel last year, as the first round of talks to end the Middle East war wrapped up in Switzerland.

apple.news

"Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!)," Trump wrote in a social media post. "This will insure 'Nuclear Honesty.' If they did not agree to this, there would ⁠be no further negotiations!" (???)

US waives Iran sanctions, Trump warns Tehran it must abide by agreement — Reuters

The United States waived sanctions on Iran for 60 days from Monday after the first talks under a nascent peace deal, with U.S. President Donald Trump saying he will "do what I have to do" if Iran does not stick to its side of the agreement.

apple.news

Vance said White House envoy Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, ⁠had come up with a process whereby the U.S. and Qatar would have control over Iranian funds when they are unfrozen, and the money “could” (?) be spent on U.S. corn, soy and wheat.

"So, the money that we lift is going to go to our farmers," Trump told reporters?

Iran's Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati said there was no such obligation, and that “at least some” (?) of the remaining frozen funds could be used to buy other non-sanctioned goods, Iran's Tasnim news agency reported.”

Trump ⁠on Tuesday said the funds that the U.S. Treasury is releasing will go into escrow under U.S. control and will be used to buy food ⁠and medical supplies exclusively from the United States, including corn, wheat, and soybeans.

Only Iran will control its unfrozen assets, Iranian envoy says — Reuters

Iran alone will decide how to use assets that are unfrozen under a deal with the ‌United States, an Iranian envoy said on Tuesday, denying Washington would have any control over the funds or that they must be used to buy U.S. commodities.

apple.news

 

[petros]

What? Are you tying PLO & IRA together and blaming Israel Zionists for the Irish British kerfuffle? Not sure what the stretch is here.

Same stretch as you that there would be forever conflict even without Israel and the divide and conquer it has brought with it.

Are you saying…what are you saying? That Saudi Arabia has American bases in its territory in exchange for protection from Russia or China or India?

Yup. Soviets wanted the oil the same way the US did. It's history if you ever do decide to click a history website one day. US armed Israel to keep Soviets from doing it especiallyafter Israel stole US nuke tech and sold it to the Soviets. Russian/Ukrainian is the 3rd most spoken language in Israel because Zionism came from E. Europe.Again you need to hone up on your ME history.

Have you tried to look up the reason behind Saudi Arabia having American military bases in its territory?

Yeah. To keep Soviets from doing it.

Again you need to hone up on your ME history.

Pick your favourite search engine, and simply put in, “Why would Saudi Arabia allow American military bases in its territory?” & does it name China or India or Russia? Does it name anyone? Try it…’cuz you might be right…right?

Egypt scared the Yankees, Soviets armed the snot out of them. Again you need to hone up on your ME history.

Sometimes, things can happen that don’t tie back to Zionists controlling the world, even things that involve Jews or Israel or Zionists. I know it sounds crazy and it must be Hasbara but maybe the Jews aren’t the source of all the worlds evils.

Not all no, just 90%

Who in the Middle East specifically wanted Iran to have nuclear capabilities aside from the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria before he took his ball and went to a permanent retirement in Moscow? The current Syrian government, led by President Ahmed al-Sharaa following the collapse of the Bashar al-Assad regime, does not want Iran to achieve nuclear capabilities, but that’s just one country.

The guy who lead al Qaeda in Falluja against America doesn't want Iranian nukes? Why isn't he afraid of Pakistan?

I’m not saying that Iran had nuclear weapons, or that it even wanted to have nuclear weapons (though it did have uranium enriched to about 60% but that was probably just for shits & giggles), but aside from the IRGC and its proxies…was anyone in favour of it happening? Why do you automatically jump to Israel here as if it’s opinion being the same as the rest of the Middle East demonizes it?

What's the cash value of enriched Uranium for Iran as an export to India, China, Russia, Japan and all the Stans that run on nuclear power? Ask Trump why he dropped the ball on Obama’s deal with Iran. Without that deal there was nothing saying they couldnt wouldnt or shouldnt enrich uranium as a high value export for trade. Its a pretty convenient for Israel to have Iran enriching uranium considered it fulfiled Netanyahu’s nearly 40 wet dream of attacking Iran. Too bad for Netanyahu and Trump they were shaken awake by reality before the goo flew huh?

They (Iran) walked (briefly) to demonstrate that they’re in control now and will continue to be, using Botswana Israel as their scapegoat to divide and conquer while making Trump look weak and inept leading to the American Midterm elections (that Trump doesn’t care about). Yes, this time this is just my opinion here.

Are you a fucking idiot? How can Israel be a scapegoat when GTFO of Lebanon is a huge part of any peace deal to be signed?

Anyway, it’s bad form to threaten a nations diplomatic delegates, and perhaps that had some bearing on the Iranian diplomatic delegates walking away even if only briefly after being directly threatened by US president Trump? Something about not having a country to return to? Do you think that could have a bearing on the Iranian reaction in Switzerland (?) or it’s just gotta be Israel ‘cuz Israel (?) and anything else is just Hasbara?

If US and Israel could utterly destroy Iran they wouldnt have lost to Iran who obliterate the missile defense system that was supposed to stop Iranian missiles but failed misersbly. You do realize that Israel is defnseless and would be long gone before 10% of Iran being wiped by Trump. Israel is a sitting duck.

Trump can huff and puff all he wants to make you and the Israel First fuckheads in the US Govt feel good but the reality is Iran won and can still blow the living shit out of Israel which is why Iran walked not because they're scared. They walked over Israeli refusal to leave Lebanon. Full stop and wake the fuck up.

Also, “U.S. Vice President JD Vance said talks with Iranian officials ‌in Switzerland had laid a good foundation for a final peace deal, but Iran denied it had begun discussions on its nuclear program or agreed to invite International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back to the country.

Why should they? Does Israel need to disarm or allow inspections of their nuclear program? Why does Israel refuse inspects? The holocaust?

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Tuesday Iranian officials had not held a meeting with IAEA chief Rafael Grossi in Switzerland and had no plans for the U.N. nuclear watchdog to inspect Iran's damaged nuclear facilities.”

Does Israel has a meeting with IAEA?

Trump insists Iran has agreed to nuclear inspections — Reuters

U.S. President Donald Trump insisted on Tuesday that Iran has agreed to allow nuclear inspections long into the future, despite statements from ‌Iran that it has not done so.

apple.news

Iran says won't allow UN inspectors at bombed nuclear sites — AFP News

Iran said Tuesday that the UN's nuclear watchdog will not be able to inspect key nuclear sites bombed by the US and Israel last year, as the first round of talks to end the Middle East war wrapped up in Switzerland.

apple.news

"Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future (Infinity!!!)," Trump wrote in a social media post. "This will insure 'Nuclear Honesty.' If they did not agree to this, there would ⁠be no further negotiations!" (???)

US waives Iran sanctions, Trump warns Tehran it must abide by agreement — Reuters

The United States waived sanctions on Iran for 60 days from Monday after the first talks under a nascent peace deal, with U.S. President Donald Trump saying he will "do what I have to do" if Iran does not stick to its side of the agreement.

apple.news

When will Israel be Nuclear Honest? When Hell freezes over. Its moot to ask one lunatic regime to do it when another lunatic regime never has and never will allow inspections 65 years after they stole nuke tech and bomb grade uranium from the US

Vance said White House envoy Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, ⁠had come up with a process whereby the U.S. and Qatar would have control over Iranian funds when they are unfrozen, and the money “could” (?) be spent on U.S. corn, soy and wheat.

"So, the money that we lift is going to go to our farmers," Trump told reporters?

If they gave a shit about farmers they would have been helped already but thy be helped. They need to fail so corporations can farm their former farms.

Iran's Central Bank Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati said there was no such obligation, and that “at least some” (?) of the remaining frozen funds could be used to buy other non-sanctioned goods, Iran's Tasnim news agency reported.”

Trump ⁠on Tuesday said the funds that the U.S. Treasury is releasing will go into escrow under U.S. control and will be used to buy food ⁠and medical supplies exclusively from the United States, including corn, wheat, and soybeans.

Only Iran will control its unfrozen assets, Iranian envoy says — Reuters

Iran alone will decide how to use assets that are unfrozen under a deal with the ‌United States, an Iranian envoy said on Tuesday, denying Washington would have any control over the funds or that they must be used to buy U.S. commodities.

apple.news

Since when do Iranians eat corn and soy?

 

[Ron in Regina]

What's the cash value of enriched Uranium for Iran as an export to India, China, Russia, Japan and all the Stans that run on nuclear power?

At 60% concentration? Don’t they use 3-5% for their nuclear reactors? Anyway, the U.S. Senate voted to limit President Trump’s ability to conduct military operations against Iran without congressional authorization after four Republicans joined with Democrats in a stinging rebuke to Trump a week after he signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran.

In the spirit of closing the barn door after…the resolution passed by the Senate Tuesday afternoon, in a 50-48 vote, directs the president to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities against Iran unless explicitly authorized by Congress, other than to defend America, an ally or partner from “imminent attack.”

Senate Passes Resolution Directing Trump to End Hostilities With Iran — The Wall Street Journal

Rebuke comes a week after the president signed framework with Tehran

apple.news

Trump can huff and puff all he wants to make you and the Israel First fuckheads in the US Govt feel good but the reality is Iran won and can still blow the living shit out of Israel which is why Iran walked not because they're scared. They walked over Israeli refusal to leave Lebanon. Full stop and wake the fuck up.

You have noticed that I’m not exactly a Trump fanboy? If not….well, I’m not. I know it’s subtle but…

If they gave a shit about farmers they would have been helped already but thy be helped. They need to fail so corporations can farm their former farms.

I concur with your assessment of the situation.

Pick your favourite search engine, and simply put in, “Why would Saudi Arabia allow American military bases in its territory?” & does it name China or India or Russia? Does it name anyone? Try it…’cuz you might be right…right?

Can I safely assume the above didn’t happen? Anyway, the House passed the same resolution on June 3, in a 215-208 vote, with four Republicans joining Democrats in support. The agreement announced by Trump earlier this month involves lifting the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and setting the stage for extended talks on Iran’s nuclear program, administration officials have said, and it’s going swimmingly.

“The measure that passed both the Senate and House this month is a “concurrent resolution,” which isn’t sent to the president for his veto or signature.
The view of most legal scholars is that the resolution wouldn’t be binding as a result of a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980s, which found that such “concurrent resolutions” are unconstitutional legislative vetoes, said Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group.” I wonder what Trump’s Blanche will have to say about this?