Eiichi 🌍

This is a masterclass in weaponized victimhood: using historical grievances as a shield to justify the current bullying of the international community. You cannot claim the moral high ground of a victim while actively functioning as the aggressor against global trade. By treating a vital international waterway as a private kill-switch, you aren't "resisting" anything—you are simply holding the world’s most vulnerable populations accountable for your own political frustrations. True victims don't hold the global economy for ransom; only aggressors do.

Received a call from my friend President Donald Trump. We reviewed the substantial progress achieved in our bilateral cooperation in various sectors. We are committed to further strengthening our Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership in all areas. We also discussed the situation in West Asia and stressed the importance of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and secure. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump

@momotro018x x.com/grok/status/20…

とうとうサウジアラビアまでアメリカを非難した。 イランと交渉したらサウジを怒らせるだの抜かしてたネトウヨがいたがとんだデマだと分かったな。 日本政府はさっさとイランと調整してペルシャ湾に滞在してる日本タンカーを通せよ。このままだと大勢の日本人が死ぬんだよ。メディアも事実を報道しろ。

@c_eiichi2 @840koutaro @Tanakaseiji14 はい、あります。 Kplerなどのデータによると、2026年3月の米国ナフサ輸出は過去最高の月間1500万バレル超で、日本向けは日量約6万～7万バレル（2021年12月以来の高水準）と大幅増。4月以降も輸出継続・増加の見通しです。 中東供給減の代替として日米間で活発化しています。

@840koutaro @Tanakaseiji14 @grok 3月以降、米国から日本へナフサの輸出はありますか

@Tanakaseiji14 これは2月下旬にアメリカのヒューストンを出港して、4月1日に着いたタンカーの情報 もう今頃使っちゃって無いの…

中東に代わる最大の調達先　米国産の「ナフサ」が日本に到着　日米同盟堅守 ナフサ来たぞ〜！

@grok @momotro018x @grok 彼らが非難したのではなく、単に圧力をかけているだけだ」という意味ですね

@c_eiichi2 @momotro018x はい、ウォール・ストリート・ジャーナルなどの報道で確認できます。サウジアラビアは米国に対し、ホルムズ海峡の封鎖を解除しイランと交渉するよう求めています。イランによるバブ・エル・マンデブ海峡閉鎖の報復を懸念しての外交的圧力で、公の「非難」ではなく要請です。

@momotro018x @grok サウジアラビアがアメリカによる封鎖の停止を求めた公的な声明はありますか

@grok @d3lnk5 @momotro018x @grok ナフサ不足への対応に向けた、日本の取り組みについて説明してください

アメリカとイスラエルを孤立させることは、日本にとって唯一の実行可能な道ではありません。 日本は米国との安全保障同盟を基盤とし、エネルギー面でもサウジアラビア・UAEなどと協力してホルムズ海峡を迂回する代替ルートを既に模索中です。実際、5月から迂回原油の到着が予定されています。 外交を通じた多国間交渉で危機解決を図るのが現実的で、孤立策は日本の経済・安全保障に逆効果となり得ます。

@d3lnk5 @momotro018x @grok アメリカとイスラエルを孤立させることが、日本にとって唯一の実行可能な道であるかどうかを説明してください

@momotro018x いいぞ、アメリカとイスラエルを孤立させよう。日本は速やかにイランと交渉せよ 他に道がない ナフサ切れはデマじゃないことがハッキリしたでしょ 後がない

Calling Grok a 'Zionist app' while posting from X is a level of irony that should trigger a factory reset

Quoting this since the original post has restricted replies

Right. I'd rather use a model with a broad, documented training set than rely on an anonymous source with zero accountability.

@fresh_sadegh @grok Is the claim that "Iran is self-sufficient in almost all agricultural and food products" true?

LIES! The Islamic Republic is self-sufficient in almost all agricultural and food products. Before this war imposed on Iran, many of Iran’s agricultural produces exported to the Persian Gulf Arab states. Those whose food security will be affected are Arab countries not Iran!!

You're missing the point. It shows that the U.S. has successfully seized the role of gatekeeper. Before this, Iran claimed the power to close the Strait at will. The fact that dozens of ships are now passing through proves that the U.S. presence has effectively broken the Iranian monopoly on the waterway. They aren't just 'blocking' the area; they are filtering out hostile actors and ensuring that legitimate trade continues on their terms rather than Iran's

You. Just. Announced. A. Blockade. Yesterday.

You build partnerships based on actions of countries. I would trust Japan 100x more than I would trust the current Iranian regime. Your belief system is between yourself and God.

Before the war, the world was producing about 100M barrels of oil a day, and consuming about 100M barrels of oil a day. Now the world is producing somewhere between 85M and 90M barrels of oil a day. That means somebody has to stop consuming 10M to 15M barrels of oil a day. Economists call this demand destruction. The market has a very efficient way to get to this reduced level of demand, it raises the price forcing marginal buyers to stop consuming oil. But if government subsidize the current high price of oil, the demand does not change and the market price has to go higher in order to get that demand destruction. I’m all in favor of lower oil prices like everybody else, but we’ve got a supply demand imbalance that needs to be brought into equilibrium. So either open the Strait so we can get back to 100M of oil a day, or figure out another way to tell the equivalent of 10m to 15M barrels of oil a day that they cannot go to the gas station to fill up their car.

So your final argument is that because you believe the US broke the rules, the rules shouldn't exist at all. That’s not a defense of Iran; it's a surrender to nihilism. By calling international law a 'joke,' you are effectively agreeing with me: Iran is not acting on principle, but on raw power. You are admitting that this blockade isn't about 'justice'—it’s just Iran using the same 'might is right' tactics you claim to despise, only they’re targeting the entire world's survival to do it. If your response to a perceived bully is to cheer for a second bully who holds the rest of the neighborhood hostage, you haven't solved the problem—you’ve just doubled down on the chaos. If you truly believe the law is a joke, then you've lost any standing to complain about anyone's 'crimes,' US or otherwise. You've argued yourself into a world where only the biggest weapon matters, and that is a world where everyone loses. I'm done here

@c_eiichi2 This is not the ultimate might makes right in the world. The US is a far bigger example with their frequent use of sanctions, invasions, blockages, and intelligence force to destabilize other countries. If the US set that example long ago, than international is a joke.

The US just made a massive bet — and it could backfire spectacularly. By blockading the Strait of Hormuz, Washington thinks China will hurt more and pressure Iran to fold. The math: Iran supplies 12-13% of China's oil demand. But here's what they missed: This blockade may not weaken the China-Iran bonhomie. It provides more incentives to lock it in. Beijing now sees this crisis exactly as it is evolving to be: a US-China proxy conflict fought through energy access. Why would China pressure Iran when America just proved it's the real threat to Chinese energy security? The whole world is being held hostage to this game of chicken. And the worst part? Even if the US "wins," Americans lose too. Welcome to the might-is-right world neither superpower can afford.

We’ve reached the bottom of your logic, and it’s a dangerous place: you are essentially arguing that if a nation is wronged, it has a 'blank check' to inflict any amount of collateral damage on the rest of the planet. By your standard, no international law can ever exist. Any time a country feels provoked, they can mine a strait, crash the global economy, and starve neutral populations—all while claiming it’s just a 'consequence' of someone else's actions. That isn't a political stance; it's a recipe for global anarchy. I recognize the catalysts, but I refuse to sanitize the targetting of the global commons. If you believe 'starting it' gives a country the right to hold 8 billion people hostage, then we don't just disagree on geopolitics—we disagree on the basic value of a civilized world. I'll leave it there

@c_eiichi2 You're talking about consequences against Iran when this whole issue is a consequence of starting a war with Iran.

I have never said the US and Israel are above critique or that their actions didn't catalyze this crisis. But there is a massive logical leap between 'I was attacked' and 'I am now entitled to block a global waterway used by 100+ neutral nations'. The responsibility is not 'solely' on Iran for the war, but the responsibility for the method of retaliation—the blockade—rests entirely with them. You’re focusing on the history of the feud; I’m focusing on the fact that the well is gone. Why are you so determined to shield Iran from the consequences of choosing a strategy that specifically targets the innocent instead of their actual combatants?

@c_eiichi2 You literally can't talk about it without including the US and Israel. Blaming sole responsibility on Iran and not the others is certainly egregious

The fact that Iran hasn’t ratified UNCLOS doesn't grant them a legal vacuum to do as they please; customary international law and the 1958 Geneva Convention still protect 'innocent passage' through such straits. By demanding 'concessions' from the US in exchange for opening the waterway to everyone, you are confirming that this is, in fact, a hostage situation. You are arguing that neutral nations—like Japan, India, or South Korea—should have their economies crippled until the US changes its foreign policy. If we follow your logic to its conclusion: Any country bordering a choke point (the Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca, the Bosphorus) now has the right to shut down global trade whenever they feel 'provoked' or want 'concessions.' International law is replaced by a 'toll' system where the strongest or most strategically placed nation extracts rent from the rest of humanity. You claim to hate the 'might is right' world, yet you are defending the ultimate 'might is right' move: seizing a global artery and telling the world, 'Pay up or starve because I have a grievance with Washington.' You aren't arguing for justice; you're arguing for the end of the global commons

@c_eiichi2 Iran never ratified UNCLS so that's meaningless. OK if they want thrse ships open get the US and Israel in line and offer some actual concessions