Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

The freakin Ayatollah who was killed put a FATWA on Nukes. Under the Obama agreement, they opened themselves up to inspection.

Frankly, they would be stupid NOT to develop nukes because it seems it's the only way to keep the bloodthirsty psychos who committed genocide at bay.

Does anyone really believe the IRGC wasn't out doing things behind the old man's back?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Delusional Pro-Iran "we dindu nuffin, those Jew boys just rolled up on us and started shooting" guy should keep those comments to internal Fars News Agency because that narrative just doesn't sell outside of internal Iranian propaganda channels - because those of us out here in the rest of the world know too much about the history and realities of Iran's actions.

Anonymous wrote:Reports say trump is planning limited strikes on Iran to “encourage a deal”.
If this thinking makes sense, let me know.

Anonymous wrote:A US Air Force KC-135 tanker with multiple patched shrapnel holes is seen returning from the Middle East

It is suspected that the damage was sustained during an Iranian missile or drone attack on Prince Sultan Airbase in Saudi Arabia

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

You’re calling it "self‑determination," but Iran’s choices weren’t forced on them by Israel or anyone else. They were ideological decisions made in 1979, long before any Israeli covert activity and long before Iran began funding armed groups across the region. And to call it "anti-hegemonic" is quite ironic given Iran has been aggressively trying to project power beyond its own border and establish its own hegemony in in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere across the region.

And dismissing Egypt and Jordan as "lap dogs" is just a cheap, lame way to avoid the obvious: those countries actually fought wars with Israel, lost territory, and still chose diplomacy over nuclear escalation. They had far more reason to pursue nukes than Iran ever did, and yet they didn’t. That’s not subservience. That’s strategy.

You don’t have to defend Israel to acknowledge that Iran made its own escalatory choices. Pretending Iran had "no choice" is just a lame, pathetic, and frankly unacceptable way of absolving them of their own responsibility in all of this. Again, the reality is simple: both states have done harmful things, and both have agency. That's fact. That's history. I've consistently been honest enough to acknowledge that, far from "delusional and dishonest." You on the other hand have your own dishonest, delusional denial about Iran's part in all of it on display for all of us here to see.

Anonymous wrote:Case in point: the mindset of Zionists. The non-Jew is an "oil monkey." Okaaaaaaaay.

No wonder Kushner keeps failing in his negotiating.

Anonymous wrote:Reports say trump is planning limited strikes on Iran to “encourage a deal”.
If this thinking makes sense, let me know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone agree that Iran get nuclear weapons

It’s a farce. They don’t get nuclear weapons. They have enriched uranium and was just about to agree to not enrich it further in Feb 27.

Why would a country that has so much oil ever need uranium unless it's to build a nuclear weapon how can anybody say oh yeah sure you can enrich for uranium in an oil-rich country it's ridiculous no one should be fooled and in fact this is proof that they never stopped their nuclear program and should be sanctioned and removed from the planet

Why would a country that supposedly has such a great economic and diplomatic relationship with China need nukes when they could be working with China on developing renewables?
Iran gets 2800+ hours of sunlight per year across most of its territories. The central plateau, Yazd, Kerman, Isfahan has world class solar irradiance values. Some of the best on the planet. And the Binalud and Manjil corridors have some of the strongest onshore wind resources in the entire Middle East. Iran could be a renewable energy powerhouse.

China has partnered with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE and other countries to build megascale renewable energy projects.

The catch is that China won't invest, because of sanctions. And the sanctions are there because nobody believes Iran is pursuing nuclear for energy alone. Iran needs to drop that pursuit. Bottom line. Their lives will be so much better if they do.

You're describing an ideal world where Israel isn't acting like a terrorist state. Iran wants nuclear weapons to defend against Israel, and given what occurred this year, I'd say they've been proven right. Which is extremely sad, because your ideal solution cannot happen.

You're describing a world where Iran has no agency, no choices, no alternatives, and where its only possible path is to pursue nuclear weapons “to defend itself from Israel.” But that framing ignores the choices Iran has made for decades.

If nuclear pursuit were simply a reaction to Israeli aggression, you’d expect Israel’s immediate neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, others who actually fought wars with Israel to be racing for nukes. They aren’t. They also aren’t chanting “Death to Israel” at every state function. Yet they were the ones who experienced direct conflict with Israel in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s.

Iran, by contrast, had no wars with Israel, no Israeli attacks on its territory, and in fact maintained cooperative ties with Israel before 1979. The first Israeli covert actions against Iran didn’t occur until decades later in the 2010s, long after Iran had already spent years funding terrorist groups that attacked Israel. And from the moment the Islamic Republic was founded, its leadership adopted “Death to Israel” as a core ideological slogan.

That wasn’t a reaction to Israeli military behavior. It was an ideological choice. It was core choice for their revolution's identity. The new regime framed Israel as illegitimate, as a Western colonial project, and as something that should not exist in the region. That ideological posture shaped everything that followed.

None of this excuses Israeli policies you find objectionable. I and many others find Israeli policies objectionable as well, I've posted numerous times here to criticize the occupation, the treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the IDF. Those criticisms stand on their own.

But it’s also not accurate to portray Iran as a passive victim with no alternatives but to “stand up to terrorist Israel.”

Iran made strategic decisions: supporting armed proxies, rejecting diplomatic normalization, and defining its very identity through opposition to Israel, while other regional states chose de‑escalation and coexistence. The current conflict dynamic didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it wasn’t inevitable.

If we’re going to call out harmful behavior, it has to be applied consistently. Israel has done things worth condemning. But Iran has also made choices that escalated tensions rather than reduced them. Both realities can be true at the same time.

An awful lot of blather to say, essentially, we gave them a chance to do exactly what we told them to do, but they chose self-determination instead.

As always, the choice of one is no choice.

You also cited the apparent decision of Egypt and Jordan not to pursue nuclear weapons despite prior conflicts with Israel as evidence that there does exist, in fact, a peaceful path to coexistence with Israel. Aside from the fact that the essence of your argument is delusional, deceptive, or both, wagging your finger at Iran for refusing to follow the lead of two subservient lap dogs into that hegemonic trap is kinda comical.

Anonymous wrote:Reports say trump is planning limited strikes on Iran to “encourage a deal”.
If this thinking makes sense, let me know.

Anonymous wrote:Reports say trump is planning limited strikes on Iran to “encourage a deal”.
If this thinking makes sense, let me know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump just wants a cut of the toll money.

He was on board with toll booth idea as long as it was crypto- but when kushner got wind of iran charging in their own currency (not petroleum dollar, not crypto), he walked out and threw a fit. Now it’s unacceptable because trumps can’t profit.

It's the other way around. Iran changed it after we walked away. They were willing to play ball and do what it takes.

Give proof. Both of you.

Oh shut up, source boy.

Iran changed the terms from Yuan to crypto (including Trump's stable coin) when the ceasefire was announced and switched it to Rial after Vance walked away.

From everything I've read, they always specified the fee amount in rials. They didn't "switch it to rials." And there was NEVER any evidence that they accepted Trump's stablecoin. And they didn't "change things after Vance walked away."

You are sloppily and confusedly munging things together. If you want to make this argument of this specific sequence and specific facts like Trump's stablecoin then you are going to have to post a source. Otherwise you just look confused and are making a fool of yourself.

No I'm not and you're a craven pathetic fool.

The "sources" are all out there, look them up your damn self. Here's a hint, check bloomberg, reuters, or Iran'a own social media posts. Trump's stable coin is called USD1 by the way.

I've specifically asked you to post sources knowing you couldn't, because I've already searched and could not find anything from Bloomberg, Reuters or Iran's social media or any other credible outlet saying they would accept USD1. USDC, USDT yes, but not USD1. I think you are either clueless and confused, or are a low-IQ troll who thinks he/she can stir the pot, by assuming we are less intelligent and less astute than you are.

You've failed.

Then you're either a dumbass, incompetent, or a liar.

https://fortune.com/2026/04/10/iran-strait-of-hormuz-crypto-tolls-stablecoins-bitcoin-oil-tankers/

https://x.com/FT/status/2042098677464867067

https://247wallst.com/investing/2026/04/10/iran-turns-strait-of-hormuz-into-bitcoin-toll-booth-will-crypto-hit-100000-again/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-01/strait-of-hormuz-ships-paying-iran-yuan-and-crypto-tolls-for-safe-passage

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/economy/2026/4/8/in-strait-of-hormuz-iran-and-china-take-aim-at-us-dollar-hegemony