_kkam__

@GordoCDA x.com/centcom/status…

@adamscochran Wrong x.com/centcom/status…

LOL US Officials now desperately walking back Trump's claims. Says they will only "coordinate" telling the civilian ships the "safe lanes" to travel across the Strait by themselves. Despite the fact that he threatened to use "force" against any interference. 🤣🤣🤣

@Osinttechnical Wrong x.com/centcom/status…

The Trump-announced US mission to guide ships out of the Persian Gulf will not involve US Navy escorts -WSJ The US will instead instruct ships on safe avenues of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and coordinate with shipping and insurance companies.

@intelFromBrian Wrong x.com/centcom/status…

US official to WSJ: New Strait of Hormuz operation does not include escorting by US warships

@WarMonitor3 Wrong x.com/centcom/status…

US navy will not be escorting ships through the strait of Hormuz rather providing them direction and information how to traverse it safely-WSJ Knew it...

@gbrew24 But it’s wrong x.com/centcom/status…

Useful clarification

@zerohedge Wrong x.com/centcom/status…

"Project Freedom" is a process through which countries, insurance companies and shipping organizations can coordinate moving traffic through the Strait, according to a senior U.S. official. It doesn’t currently involve U.S. Navy warships escorting vessels through the strait" - WSJ

@GordoCDA Wrong x.com/centcom/status…

Huh?

@yarbatman Kos nagoo mullah lover

The Trump administration is like “Iran needs to negotiate in good faith” and then is like “Iranians are rats in a sewer pipe.” Deeply unserious people…

@ashtiwai What the fuck would you know about Iranians or Iran? GAMAAN survey inside the country show the regime has only about 15-20% support The pop of Tehran is 10m so ~1.5m supporters. 10% of that can fill Revolution Square You are disregarding the 80% that want the regime gone

This is the reality inside Iran that many people, brainwashed and misled by diaspora Persians, refuse to understand. Iran is deeply divided, and the regime still has significant support from within–something many refuse to accept or acknowledge. It’s unfortunate that some still support such a brutal regime, but that reality cannot be ignored. No, 90 million Iranians are not “held hostage” by their government or occupied by their own regime. That narrative is propaganda pushed by diaspora Persians to frame themselves as victims.

@ComicDaveSmith @jakeshieldsajj He called you a subversive lying JEW. You reap what you sow asshole

Oh no, the dork famous for taking selfies with boat hoes called me subversive! I absolutely never told @jakeshieldsajj that I was scared. (Who would say that about themselves?) I was aware that you wanted to connect. I wasn’t very interested because you’re retarded. Clear?

@joekent16jan19 Are you capable of making a single statement without mentioning Israel?

This is a good move—it buys us time. It’s essential that we use it wisely. Acknowledge that under current conditions, there are no military solutions and a true settlement is unlikely. Follow the Reagan-in-’84 model: pull our forces out of the region, let our Gulf allies negotiate to reopen the SOH, and refocus on the issues at home and winning the next election, like Reagan did. This is the opposite of what Israel wants us to do. To prevent Israel from pulling us deeper into this war, we must impose real restraint by limiting military aid to Israel. The escalation game is a losing hand. Dump it and walk away.

@joekent16jan19 You’re a fucking traitor. Why don’t you just suggest we pull our pants down and let them fuck us

President Trump is sending more military power to the Middle East as Iran rejects our initial peace offers—setting the escalation trap. We can avoid that trap if we are wise enough not to believe our own hype. Bombing Iranian equipment and killing leaders may produce great hype reels, but if the GWOT taught us anything, it is that tactical success does not equal strategic victory. To avoid a major disaster, we must first define what is truly vital to our national interests and act accordingly—regardless of optics of the daily news cycle. We need the Strait of Hormuz open so oil can flow and stability can return to the energy markets and the Gulf region. These are realistic, achievable goals. They can be reached by significantly reducing our military footprint in the region and lifting sanctions on Iran. We can then tout Iran’s agreement not to build a nuclear weapon as a clear win for the media. The key to avoiding the escalation trap and a disastrous quagmire is restraining Israel by drastically limiting the military aid we provide. Israel cannot sustain this fight without us, and will do everything they can to keep us engaged. We must pursue our own objectives, not theirs. If we try to impose a maximalist outcome on Iran (zero enrichment, etc.) this war will undoubtedly escalate—costing American lives, billions more dollars, and ultimately eroding our global standing. We must learn from our past and recognize when it is time to cut our losses and walk away. In the end, working to restore order will strengthen America far more than any military action ever could.

@howardbaskerv Hahaha

@MarioNawfal Fake news

BREAKING: TRUMP ANNOUNCES ON FOX ‘IRAN WAR IS OVER’ Finally believe me?

@InsiderWire Fake news

@tparsi Stfu trita No one listens to your kos o sher Except maybe the regimis in Iran who have plastered your ugly face on billboards

Why the Iran ceasefire may have shifted the dynamics back in Trump's favor Diplomacy between Washington and Tehran has not yet unraveled, despite JD Vance’s theatrical departure from last week’s talks in Islamabad. Trump now signals that the two sides could reconvene within days in the Pakistani capital. Whether negotiators return to the table or continue their exchanges through quieter, remote channels before the ceasefire lapses, one reality appears to have shifted: Trump has clawed back a measure of momentum—and with it, leverage—over Iran, largely by virtue of the ceasefire. Here’s why. Trump entered this moment politically cornered and strategically constrained. Surging gasoline prices were inflicting acute domestic pain, eroding his standing at home. More critically, he faced a barren escalation ladder. Each conceivable move—strikes on Iran’s oil infrastructure, attacks on civilian targets, the seizure of Persian Gulf islands, or covert operations to capture enriched uranium—carried the near-certainty of forceful Iranian retaliation. Such responses would not merely match his escalation but compound it, deepening his economic exposure, amplifying political risk, and entangling him further in a perilous and unwinnable strategic bind. Nor could he simply extricate the United States from the conflict on his own terms. Absent an understanding with Tehran, Iran retained both the capacity and the incentive to continue targeting Israel and vulnerable U.S. assets across the Gulf. Trump needed Iran’s permission to get out of the war. The ceasefire, however, has subtly altered that equation. Trump may no longer need a formal nod from Tehran to step back. If he disengages now—without a comprehensive agreement—Iran will almost certainly maintain its grip over the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic setback for Washington. Yet Tehran is unlikely to resume direct military operations against U.S. targets in the Persian Gulf. To do so, in the absence of renewed American strikes, would cast Iran as the aggressor, inviting severe and potentially coordinated repercussions—not only from Washington but from wary global powers such as Russia and China. Moreover, the balance of needs has tilted. Iran now appears to need an agreement more than the United States does. Trump has already secured his central objective—the escape from a war he was ill-advised to begin—while Iran, despite accruing leverage through its command of the Strait, remains far from realizing its broader ambitions: meaningful sanctions relief, a definitive and enduring end to hostilities, and perhaps even the contours of a more stable, constructive relationship with Washington. Tehran’s decision to dispatch its largest, most senior, and most expansive delegation to Islamabad for direct talks with the American vice president reflected a striking confidence—that it occupied its strongest negotiating position vis-à-vis the United States since 1979. Yet to convert that moment of perceived ascendancy into little more than a cessation of U.S. bombardment would fall short of its aspirations. Even if Washington were to acquiesce to Iran’s control of the Strait, such an outcome would pale against the far more consequential gains Tehran believes are within reach. Instead, Iran needs to translate this leverage not only into a durable end to the war, but ideally, into a new peace: One that delivers sweeping sanctions relief and inaugurates a more stable, mutually defined economic and political relationship with Washington. Such an arrangement would serve as a bulwark against renewed conflict. The economic imperative is especially stark: sanctions relief is indispensable to reconstruct a country now burdened with damage running into the hundreds of billions of dollars. As I have argued before, sanctions relief is not merely an economic demand—it is a strategic necessity. Without it, Iran risks a condition of chronic erosion, a slow but steady weakening that would leave it exposed. That vulnerability, in turn, could invite further attacks. It was, after all, the misperception of Iranian weakness that helped open the window for initial strikes. But Trump does not, in any fundamental sense, require any of this. The United States can endure without a formal agreement with Iran and without the benefits of an economic relationship with Tehran. To be sure, a negotiated settlement would better serve long-term American interests: the nuclear constraints Trump seeks can only be credibly secured at the negotiating table. Abruptly abandoning diplomacy while leaving Iran in undisputed control of the Strait would also unsettle key regional allies. Yet these are strategic preferences, not immediate necessities. Trump’s calculus is far more transactional and far less patient. He can point to the damage already inflicted on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and conventional forces, proclaim a hollow victory, and disengage. He has already emphasized that the United States no longer depends on Persian Gulf oil, insulating it from the direct economic consequences of Iran’s toll regime. As a result, the burden shifts outward: the Strait becomes a problem for European and Asian powers—countries that Trump has noted declined to rally to his side when he sought their help in prying the waterway from Tehran’s grip. The window now open offers Tehran a chance to convert battlefield leverage into lasting strategic gain. To let it close would mean forfeiting not just incremental progress, but the possibility of reshaping its economic and geopolitical position. By contrast, the United States, having already secured a tenuous exit ramp through the ceasefire, has less at stake in the short term. Walking away, therefore, is politically and strategically easier for Trump than for his Iranian counterparts. Both can live with diplomatic failure, but Tehran has more gains to lose. How Tehran chooses to navigate this narrowing corridor—whether it presses its advantage or overplays its hand—will be interesting to see.

@Polymarket A week ago reports were saying saudis were urging no ceasefire and now the opposite? I call bs. Meanwhile oil price has not changed in that period

JUST IN: Saudi Arabia is reportedly “pressing” the U.S. to drop its blockade & return to negotiations.

@mehdirhasan No Mehdi That’s not a win it’s kicking the can down the road. The Islamic Republic must be crushed or hamstrung for a significant amount of time for the betterment of the region and the world. Ideal scenario would be regime change

Ridiculous. Take the fricking win.

@piersmorgan Only ships interacting with Iranian ports

Sorry, WHAT!? So, having demanded the Strait be opened on pain of all Iranian civilisation being ended, President Trump is now going to shut it himself?