Disinformation Tracker

Ethan Klein says I quoted AB "maliciously out of context". A second later he says "even the way that they quote it doesn't sound bad" and only psychopaths disagree. Which is it? Then he requests evidence of him spreading propaganda. I will link a mountain of evidence below.

@stockingthecap So you want Track AIPAC to establish a formula for how politicians can take Israel lobby money without being tracked? You're clearly a Zionist shill. Who do you imagine you're fooling? What did you get paid for this bullshit?

The 2 Major Problems with Track AIPAC… until these are addressed, their graphics are wrong

After learning he paid $4 million in taxes, Asmongold suddenly cares about where his tax money is going. Since Asmongold supports the Iran war, he will be happy to learn that his $4 million bought 2 whole patriot missiles which failed to intercept a $20k Iranian Shahed drone.

The reason Israeli soldiers can so quickly get comfortable in the homes of displaced people is because that's how Israelis live their whole lives.

@EliLake @mdubowitz You lost the war moron. Trump is just about ready to accept Iran's demands to reopen Hormuz. Now you're reduced to writing fan fiction about a super secret new phase in the war where you idiots miraculously turn things around. 😂 Enough already. It's pathetic.

Peace through people power

@mdubowitz In other words, Iran won the war and America is preparing to make major concessions to reopen Hormuz, so Netanyahu and Barnea must pretend there's still some super secret plan to actually defeat Iran. What happened to sending in the Kurds? Israelis are delusional. 😂

For Israel and its intelligence apparatus, the move to "Phase 3" suggests a long-term strategy rather than a quick endgame. Covert ops, psychological pressure, economic disruption and support for the opposition could define the next phase of the conflict. timesnownews.com/world/middle-e…

A lot of people don't know this but Iran's GDP by purchasing power parity is about $1.8 trillion. So about 3x larger than Israel's. However, that is only a fraction of what it would be without sanctions. This is why the US and Israel are hell bent on trying to destroy Iran.

@viraameli @mdubowitz Actually by purchasing power parity Iran's GDP is closer to $1.8 trillion..

@mdubowitz Iran’s GDP is closer to $450B, despite criminal sanctions. Sanctions are a disaster. But Iran has done a great job in building self-reliance and offer high human development and quality of life. Israel, on the other hand, is a proxy state depending on the US for survival.

In 1976, Iran’s GDP was $76B and Israel’s was $16B — Iran’s economy nearly 5x larger. In 2026, Israel’s GDP about $700B while Iran’s closer to $300B — Israel’s economy 2x+ larger — despite 90 million Iranians and just 10 million Israelis. The Islamic Republic is a disaster.

Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala and now... Cuba. Yet another country yearning for liberal democracy, only to be destroyed by brutal Hasanism. Thank you ContraPoints for speaking out! We can't keep letting him destroy countries!

@mattlieb It's a real shame because the libs have always been there to save communist countries from destruction at the hands of America. That is until... Hasan. It was all going so well for Cuba until he got involved!

Damn I hope Trump doesn’t attempt a genocide in Cuba cuz then you’d have to wait 2 years to say a single word about it.

@PrepperCanadian @Pataramesh Brother Hormuz is closed, it was barely open for a day, and the stock market and futures markets are totally irrelevant. The supply crisis for oil, gas, fertilizer, aluminum, helium and sulfur has not been alleviated in any way whatsoever. It continues to grow worse by the day.

Ghalibaf’s 2 AM post market denial tweet felt a bit too scripted. In doing so, Iran may have forfeited its real leverage. The tepid rejections of Trump’s grandiose claims throughout the day have only added to the suspicion. Despite the de jure U.S. blockade still being in place, traffic now appears to be flowing through Hormuz at an accelerating rate, even as U.S. forces continue pouring into the region. No one can deny the bravery of the Iranians in the face of such an advanced adversary, and who can really expect Iran to endure civilizational erasure just to prove a point, but this is starting to look like capitulation.

He wanted a 45-Day ceasefire. Iran, respecting Pakistan's efforts, gave him 14 Days... All his recent talk is to present this disaster as a Win to those who still believe him

@MisterScarlett @cturnbull1968 @ScottJenningsKY The fact that the market price of oil futures has gone down actually makes no difference to the oil supply whatsoever. Right now there is a massive reduction in global oil supply that will likely take years to make up for. Same with gas, aluminum, helium, sulfur and fertilizer.

@MisterScarlett @cturnbull1968 @ScottJenningsKY Basically the actual cost to purchase a barrel of oil right now is upwards of $150. In East Asia there's reports of oil selling above $200 a barrel. "Futures" are contracts to purchase oil in the future. Some people have lowered the selling price on THOSE contracts for now.

Last night I was assured that we are in a global energy crisis from which the world will never recover.

To get a deal with Iran, Trump and the US must make major concessions. I've wondered how they will spin this defeat into something palatable for the public. Turns out they're just going to pretend something completely different happened and hope their supporters don't notice.

@Mike_from_PA The deal currently being negotiated looks like this... An end to the war on all fronts (including Lebanon). Lifting all sanctions on Iran and unfreezing assets. Payment of reparations. Iran maintains control of Hormuz. In return, Iran agrees to a new nuclear deal.

@Mike_from_PA In fact, these two weeks have seen very low traffic through Hormuz, so the supply crisis has actually gotten worse during this time. Iran never agreed to give up their uranium. They suggested diluting it as part of a "JCPOA 2.0" style deal. That is IF Iran's demands are met.

It does seem that Iran is capitulating based on early reports. Giving up all Nuclear material, opening the Strait and doing it for a 10 day ceasefire seems like a blunder. What am I missing here?

@jackcarstens68 @davelimited @En_chinaNews Amigo you lost the war with Iran and you're already fantasizing about war with China? 😂

@davelimited @En_chinaNews I love the Chinese people and culture, one of the best civilizations ever to exist. But if you think for a minute that America couldn’t end them in 24 hours, you’re crazy.

@tparsi @AliAbunimah The scenario you depict makes no sense. Why would you expect Iran to open up Hormuz without a deal? Also, if the US leaves the region without a deal and Iran is still in control of Hormuz, that is unquestionably an American defeat. Nothing matters more than Hormuz.

@AliAbunimah Ali, in the scenario I depict, Iran continues to control the Straits BUT the oil begins to flow because the oil must flow for Iran to generate income from the tolls. Controlling the straits and closing it are different things. Only the latter pushes up oil prices.

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.

@hunt4752 @ca_euler @MFactsplosion @ChrisRMcGuire Brother you love the phrase "normative view". 😂 It's meaningless. What is the "normative view" of America starving, raping, torturing and murdering tens of millions of people over the last decades? America set up a camp in Iraq where they raped and tortured locals.

Not at all. The school that was struck was on the grounds of a base from which Iran launched missiles at Israeli civilians during the 12 day war last year. Reports from inside Iran claimed it also had a military radar on top of the building. There is no evidence that US or Israel knew it was a school It’s certainly a tragedy but one side explicitly uses human shields and the other side is deterred by the use of human shields… think about that Intentions matter and are part of any normative view

The fact that Beijing is planning to supply Iran with strategic weapons systems to kill U.S. troops in Iran surprises even me. China was much more careful about how it supported Russia in Ukraine; it supplied many drones and parts but was more careful about sending full weapons systems—and American troops weren’t even involved in that conflict. @POTUS is right to say that this is unacceptable and cannot happen. But it also shows how dominant Beijing believes its position is right now.