Edessa Thymbra 🎒 💚🤍❤️✌️

Gaza and Lebanon are under heavy bombardment. They’ve already endured unimaginable suffering. Keep them in your prayers. Pray for peace to finally prevail.

I’m so used to Israeli horrors, I saw this headline and instinctively thought, that sounds correct and expected. A country of rapists

@DrNeilStone It's 6 billion!

42000 unarmed Iranian protestors did not die for a nuclear deal or to open the Strait of Hormuz

🚨🇮🇱🇵🇸ISRAEL IS BOMBING GAZA NOW

@SepideJandaghi دیگه اینجوریه! کار هنری به من نیومده. 😅

@D2theIGF آخی🥺🌹

نمیدونم الان کسی کلاس آواز به دردش میخوره اصلا😃

اه این‌خانم‌تحصیل کرده چه زود ناناحت شد!

آخوند که نرفت ولی ارغوان خودش بزودی میره پیش اخوند! #فرقه_پهلوی x.com/Arghavaniii_/s…

@SagharTava75609 با تاپ برو ولی انصافا سیگار‌ نکش! 😁

با اینکه کلی با مامانم بحث کردم ولی واقعا از ژانر اینکه با تاپ بیرون بریم خوشم اومد

@Shivasheevz دقیقا درسته!

@D2theIGF باید خیلی باسواد باشه. این بازی با کلمات، اصطلاحات مهندسی، یه شعور خاصی لازمه

ادمین این اکانت رو به من نیشانش بدین. من باید از این انگلیسی یاد بگیرم.🤌🤌🤌🤌🤌

@AriaSaami باید شرط بذارن اون دلقک‌ها تحویل بدن، البته به شرطی که اعدام نکنن. بفرستنشون کارگری جاهایی که عموشون زده بسازن. امریکا و انگلیس اینارو سه‌سوت تحویل میدن.

بین بسته شدن شبکه منو تو و یکی از بند های پیش نویس توافق، مبنی بر “توقف جنگ رسانه ای” رابطه ی کاملا مستقیمی وجود داره. منو تو پیش پرداخت بود، اصل کاری اینترنشناله که بزودی اون هم تعطیل میشه. #مزدور_برو_گمشو

@BarakRavid You are only supposed to write a story about Netanyahu having a difficult call with Trump.

🚨🇵🇰🇺🇸🇮🇷מפקד צבא פקיסטן פילדמרשל עאסים מוניר נמצא בדרכו לטהראן בנסיון לסגור את ההסכם בין ארה"ב לבין איראן על סיום המלחמה, כך אומרים לי מקור ביטחוני פקיסטני

دیشب یکی از دوستان مطلع داستان شهادت ده‌ها نفر رزمندگان یکی از یگان‌های موشکی در از یکی از پایگاه‌های موشکی را تعریف کرد که اشک در چشمم جمع شد. گویا مسیرهای ورود و خروج بسته می‌شود و بر اثر خفگی به مرور شهید می‌شوند. تا آخرین لحظه ارتباطشان هم برقرار بوده. تصورش هم خوفناک است.

In the coming days, President Trump will likely be forced to reach the frustrating conclusion that, under the current reality, it is not possible to impose on Iran what it perceives as surrender—neither on the nuclear issue nor on control over Hormuz. There are several reasons for this, but the central one, in my view, is that it is impossible to impose surrender on a state that believes (and it does not really matter whether rightly or wrongly) that it has won or, at the very least, holds the upper hand and that this situation is unlikely to change even if military strikes resume, since, in its assessment, its ability to inflict damage is higher than that of the opposing side and its pain threshold is higher as well. What is also clear is that Trump cannot currently declare “victory” and end the war without presenting at least one meaningful achievement in each of the two areas: the nuclear issue and Hormuz. Therefore, he will need to make two key decisions: first, to determine whether and how the minimum required to present a “victory picture” can be achieved; and second, to prioritize between the two main objectives, Hormuz and the nuclear issue. Regarding the nuclear issue, there is considerable doubt as to whether a “good nuclear deal” with Iran can be achieved. One can attempt, through a diplomatic arrangement, to ensure that the breakout threat to a nuclear weapon is not immediate—for example, by removing highly enriched uranium (not only at 60% enrichment but also at 20%) or at least diluting it to lower levels; by restoring IAEA inspections at declared sites in Iran; and by suspending uranium enrichment for a relatively long period. However, I do not see any scenario (neither today nor after a resumption of hostilities) in which an agreement could be reached that would completely prevent Iran from having the ability to eventually break out to a weapon in the future. Such an agreement would require the removal of all enriched uranium (including low-enriched material), the dismantling of underground enrichment infrastructure, and extensive IAEA monitoring—not only at declared facilities, but anywhere there is suspicion of weaponization-related activity. Iran will never agree to this. Alternatively, a military option can be pursued (which, even if operationally feasible, is far from a “walk in the park”) that would reduce the immediate breakout threat (for example, dealing with 60% enriched material), but even this would not fully eliminate the threat. Therefore, Trump will have to decide what the “minimum” is that he can present as an achievement, even if it does not provide an optimal solution. Regarding Hormuz, the only way to ensure the strait’s opening is likely through an agreement with Iran in exchange for lifting the maritime blockade. There are three main factors currently obstructing such a solution: Iran’s demand for recognition of its sovereignty over the strait (which will not be accepted, though American recognition of Iranian “influence” there may be possible); Iran’s demand (deriving from the first) to impose transit fees in the strait; and Iran’s refusal to discuss the details of a nuclear settlement already at the initial stage of the agreement (in parallel with the issues of Hormuz, the maritime blockade, and sanctions). A military option to open the strait may be possible, but it is highly complex, requiring at least partial ground control over the areas dominating the strait, as well as close cooperation with Gulf states (of which there is considerable doubt that all or most would agree). Even then, it is unclear whether Iran’s ability to disrupt movement through the strait using drones or missiles (even in limited numbers) could be neutralized. Therefore, here too, Trump will need to define his minimum requirement: whether opening the strait alone is sufficient, or whether it is also necessary to strip Iran of its ability to derive future economic benefit from it. In addition, Trump will have to do what none of us likes to do: prioritize. If, in his view, the Hormuz issue is the top priority (which is probably the case, given the U.S. set of considerations and the global economy), he may have to accept greater compromises on the nuclear issue (i.e., settle for less significant Iranian concessions, at least in the initial framework agreement phase), or alternatively agree to a military operation (combined with ground activity) that would reduce or eliminate Iran’s nuclear leverage. Even these do not guarantee, as noted, a resolution of the Hormuz crisis, since Iran may continue to demand economic benefits alongside the opening of the strait. However, it would, at least in theory, be easier to proceed on the basis of the equation: opening the strait in exchange for lifting the blockade. If, in his view, the nuclear issue is the top priority, he will need to ensure a military solution that significantly reduces or removes Iran’s Hormuz leverage, so that progress can be made on the nuclear issue without the Iranian sword hanging over the global economy. In any case, it is far from certain that a military action — however significant and painful — that does not guarantee a concrete achievement in either of the two objectives (opening the strait and/or removing fissile material) would provide Trump with the required “victory picture,” unless he believes that the destruction of several power plants and further degradation of Iran’s military capabilities is a sufficient substitute for a reasonable resolution of either the Hormuz crisis or the nuclear issue.

@binaload اره، درسته برای چای جواب‌نمیده.

@D2theIGF والا چایی رو یبار اینجوری بخوری سقف دهنت ایزوگامش میریزه

تن ماهی یه طوریه که ازون لحظه ای که میخوریش دیگه لب به هر لیوان و فنجونی بزنی بو کله ماهی میگیره. من شخصا حاضرم تا ۲۴ ساعت بعد تن ماهی مثل گورخر برم از برکه اب بخورم و حواسم به کروکودیلا باشه ولی لبم هیچ لیوانی رو تاچ نکنه.

یه آدم خیلی نزدیک میگه همسر همکارش دوقلو باردار بوده و شوک انفجار باعث مرگ زن و جنین‌ها شده.

نیویورک تایمز تأیید می‌کند که پنتاگون موشک آزمایشی PRISM حاوی ۱۸۰ هزار گلوله تنگستن را در یک سالن ورزشی در ایران آزمایش کرده. واشنگتن به معنای واقعی کلمه از یک تیم والیبال دختران به عنوان سوژه آزمایشی استفاده کرد و ۲۱ غیرنظامی را قتل‌عام کرد. شرارت محض!

The Lancet, a wold-leading medical journal has warned that damage to #Pasteur_Institute of Iran, as the result of U.S./Israeli attacks, threatens regional health security. According to The Lancet, "The Pasteur Institute of Iran has been a pillar of the country’s public health system for more than a century. This institute has provided key public health infrastructure on multiple fronts, including vaccine development and production, national reference laboratory services, diagnostics, and genomic surveillance for infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2, cholera, rabies, measles, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS, and viral hepatitis. The loss of the institute is not merely symbolic; it represents a real, immediate, and dangerous threat to public health. [...] This is not solely a national issue; regional health security is also at risk." Attacking a century-old scientific and public health institution is not merely an attack on a building; it is an assault on people’s right to health, science, and life. The American-Israeli deliberate attack on the Pasteur Institute of Iran was a flagrant war crime. The perpetrators must be held accountable.