Quibble

You can’t convince me that BadEmpanada is not a Zionist at this point with the way he is moving to support Israel

summary based on the subtitles: Based on the subtitle track, the video is a roughly 93-minute political commentary criticizing Iran's new ceasefire and memorandum with the United States. The speaker is strongly opposed to the United States and Israel, supports Iranian sovereignty and regional power, but is also sharply critical of Iran's current negotiators and economic elite. The speaker says the agreement looks highly favorable to Iran on paper: it promises an end to hostilities, including in Lebanon, the lifting of the American naval blockade, withdrawal of US forces, sanctions relief, and at least $300 billion for Iranian reconstruction. Nevertheless, he argues that it is "too good to be true." His central claim is that Iran surrendered its strongest immediate leverage—the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—before receiving irreversible guarantees. Once the strait reopens, he says, America can replenish its oil and material reserves and prepare for a future closure, meaning the same tactic will never again have the same surprise or economic effect. He fears that Iran's concessions may be permanent while America's are easily reversible. Iran may be required to dilute or surrender its enriched uranium, accept extensive inspections, and eventually face demands concerning its missiles and its relationships with Hezbollah, Ansar Allah, and Iraqi groups. By contrast, sanctions relief, investment promises, and the ending of the blockade could be withdrawn whenever Trump or Congress claims Iran has violated the deal. He doubts that Washington can or genuinely wants to force Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon, and believes the larger American-Israeli objective remains the denuclearization of Iran and the destruction of its regional influence. A major part of the video attacks the promised $300 billion reconstruction package. The speaker portrays it as political bait that will make Iranian businesses, oligarchs, officials, influencers, and ordinary people economically dependent on continued American approval. He predicts that these groups will then pressure the government to make further concessions whenever Washington threatens sanctions or the loss of investment. He supports closer economic relations with China in principle, but argues that no meaningful eastward economic strategy can work without lasting military security. The speaker assigns particular responsibility to President Masoud Pezeshkian and parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf. Although he defends Qalibaf against some distorted quotations and personal attacks, he argues that Qalibaf has effectively taken ownership of the agreement. If it succeeds, he says Qalibaf deserves enormous credit. If it collapses and produces another war, Qalibaf and Pezeshkian should accept personal responsibility and resign rather than blame the leadership afterward. He interprets a statement attributed to Mojtaba Khamenei as saying that Khamenei opposed the memorandum in principle but authorized it after Pezeshkian and other officials explicitly accepted responsibility and promised not to submit to excessive American demands. The speaker sees this as an attempt to prevent the negotiators from later blaming the supreme leader if the agreement fails. His overall prediction is pessimistic: he expects another war within roughly eighteen months to two years, possibly before the 2028 US election, with Iran entering it in a weaker position. He also rejects claims that Qalibaf could become an Iranian "Bonaparte" who modernizes and economically liberalizes the country, arguing that such a project requires peace and deterrence that Iran has not secured. The conclusion combines foreign-policy and class arguments. The speaker says Iran's poor and religiously committed population defended the state during the war, but the government has prioritized the Chamber of Commerce, oligarchs, and affluent urban groups in the peace settlement. He nevertheless ends on a somewhat hopeful note: the agreement has clarified who is responsible, exposed the connection between economic oligarchy and foreign-policy concessions, and may encourage a movement defending Iranian independence against both American-Israeli pressure and domestic oligarchic power. The video's core argument: Iran may appear to have won favorable terms, but it has exchanged immediate, difficult-to-recreate military and economic leverage for promises that Washington can later withdraw.

Hasan Piker: "I wouldn't support Graham Platner if what he did was irredeemable. He did irredeemable things but I still support him." It's incoherent because he knows he's wrong and is intentionally misleading his audience.

I'm gonna repeat this because right now, it seems like X is determined to retard people into 2005. Every. Single. Argument. Every single argument against Communism is based on a lie about Communism. Every single one. There are zero exceptions. And the ONLY people who think they have one cannot have that "exception" held to scrutiny. They will run and hide and dodge and avoid investigation at each turn. Because, at the end of the day, anti-communism is cowardice.

liberals when they see a meteor barreling straight towards earth:

BREAKING: Iran's top joint military command officially releases a statement closing the Strait of Hormuz. Full statement: