iang

30 years of Iran almost about to get a nuke. Gotta be some form of record - @TheEconomist is the only one who comes close, with like 25 years of China about to collapse.

A non-aggression pact between #Iran and Saudi Arabia? 🔹The Financial Times report on Saudi Arabia’s proposal for a regional “non-aggression pact” between Iran and neighboring states is not merely a temporary diplomatic initiative. Rather, it signals Riyadh’s attempt to redefine the Middle East’s security architecture in the aftermath of the U.S./Israeli war on Iran. 🔹The significance of this idea lies less in the pact itself – after all, this is not the first time such an idea is being discussed – than in the strategic logic behind it. Saudi Arabia appears to have concluded that the perpetual cycle of deterrence, limited strikes, and proxy warfare can no longer be managed solely through reliance on the American security umbrella. 🔹The Saudis’ reference to the 1970s “Helsinki process” is also far from accidental. That model was designed precisely to manage competition between hostile blocs, not to fully resolve ideological and geopolitical disputes. In other words, the objective is not to eliminate tensions, but to contain them. 🔹In effect, Riyadh now seems to be moving toward a form of implicit acceptance of a new regional balance of power, in which Iran, despite the heavy costs of the recent war, remains an indispensable actor in the region’s security equations. 🔹This shift also reflects a broader change in the Saudi conception of “stability.” For years, many Arab states defined regional security in terms of containing or weakening Iran’s regional influence. Now, however, the primary priority appears to be preventing Iran-Israel conflict from escalating into a permanent regional war. 🔹From this perspective, the proposal for a non-aggression pact should be understood as part of the broader trend toward the “regionalization” of Persian Gulf security. This process began with the China-mediated Iran-Saudi rapprochement in 2023 and may now enter a more complex phase, i.e., the establishment of rules of conduct for crisis management. 🔹At the same time, comparisons between the Middle East and Cold War-era Europe have serious limitations. Unlike Europe, the region lacks durable institutional structures, clear deterrence lines, and even a minimal consensus over the foundations of a regional security order. Moreover, the role of non-state actors and multilayered conflicts makes the equation far more complex. 🔹More importantly, any such initiative would remain inherently fragile without some degree of mutual understanding between Iran and Israel regarding the acceptable limits of escalation. Any new direct confrontation could easily destroy the entire process of regional de-escalation. 🔹At the same time, the proposal itself demonstrates that the Arab states of the Persian Gulf are increasingly concerned about the spillover of Iran-Israel rivalry into their energy infrastructure, trade corridors, and economic development projects. This concern has now become a major driver of regional policy. 🔹For this reason, even if the idea of a “non-aggression pact” never materializes into a formal agreement, the very fact that it has been proposed carries an important message, that a significant part of the Arab world is no longer seeking to exclude Iran from the region’s security equations, but rather to make patterns of interaction with Tehran more predictable.

We won't be far behind if C-22 passes. In its current state, VPNs would almost certainly require us to log identifying user data. Signal isn't headquartered in Canada so they can just shut off Canadian servers, but our HQ is. We pay an ungodly amount of taxes to this corrupt government, and in return they want to destroy the entire essence of our service to basically spy on its own citizens. Not happening. We'll move HQ and take our taxes elsewhere.

@AriDavidPaul The difficulty with comparing the Israeli statements of rhetoric is that they are also matched by actions on the ground. Which shows intent. All military engagements feature lots of rhetoric. What you need to isolate is when the rhetoric crosses into action.

I posted links to video of IRGC promising genocide. You were proven wrong. As we both knew you would, you spin and twist. Do you try to spin Netanyahu or Smotrich’s statements the same way? To explain them away as reasonable? If Netanyahu says we need a final solution eliminating Palestinians, you’d spin that as reasonable or non-genocidal? It’s surreal to me that you don’t see your own pretzel twisting. If direct video proving you wrong doesn’t do it…you’re immune to facts and evidence.

Which of these states is rogue? The one that will use nukes to stop the other state having nukes? Or the one that will build nukes to stop the other state nuking it? The Israeli framing of "Iran must never have nukes" turns out to hide an even darker framing.

@AriDavidPaul 90% of what you are posting is just plain rhetoric. It isn't intent. Ask a lawyer to explain what is the difference.

@iang_fc Not sure what Google results have to do with video proving you wrong. I just posted Google so you couldn’t dismiss links 1 by 1. Hundreds of videos contained in that one search of IRGC demanding genocide. And you somehow try to spin every one…

@LiesbethMiranda @MrKnesss @caitoz Yeah I get that - the statement he made was curiously circular - intellectually dishonest at its core.

@iang_fc @MrKnesss @caitoz He's talking about himself. Zionists always project, as well as lie.

Zionists aren't shrieking about the New York Times report because they believe Israel was lied about, they're shrieking because they'd assumed it's NYT's job to administer propaganda for Israel. It's not about "blood libel", it's about narrative control. We know this is true because there's not actually any new information in Kristof's report; every significant point in the article had already been reported by other less-influential media outlets and human rights groups. We didn't see this kind of outcry with all the other mountains of reports on the sexual torture of Palestinian prisoners that have been coming out over the years. We only saw it when a more influential news media outlet reported on it. This shows that their real objection isn't so much about the actual contents of the article as it is about the information influencing a larger number of people than the earlier reports did. It's not about the facts, it's about the numbers. It's about making sure the largest possible number of westerners think nice thoughts about the state of Israel. Everyone you see blubbering about journalistic integrity and sloppy reporting today is just admitting that they're a propagandist. They're admitting that it is their job to manipulate the way the public thinks about Israel, and that they believe it should be every other news outlet's job too. And what's so funny about this hysterical meltdown is that the New York Times actually HAS been wildly biased in favor of Israel. Its slanted reporting, unequal word choices and passive-language headlines have been well-documented. All that's changed is that Israel's abuses became so obvious and undeniable that its editors could no longer justify spiking a well-sourced report about them. Israel propagandists are used to the New York Times carrying water for their beloved apartheid state, so they view this as not just a propaganda concern, but a betrayal as well.

Free Speech is not about protecting comfortable speech or popular opinions. It’s about protecting the right to speak truth to power, document atrocities, name genocide when we see it, and demand accountability even when it makes the powerful uncomfortable. substacktools.com/sharex/d_WVn8fT

I have written for a while that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party in Australia serve the same client. Not the working class. Not small business. But the asset management class. This week's policy announcement is the cleanest proof of that thesis I have ever seen. The Australian government just announced the biggest housing tax reform in 40 years. The press is calling it a win for the working class. It's actually the opposite. The bill will raise house prices, hand the country's housing stock to institutional capital, and lock the under-40 generation out of ownership for good. The devil is in the details. Negative gearing lets you borrow to buy a rental property and write the losses off against your salary. Australia is one of the only countries that allows this. The capital gains tax discount lets you pay tax on only half your profit if you hold for over a year. Combined, these two policies turned investment housing into the default Australian retirement plan for 40 years. From July 1 2027, Labor is changing both. The 50% CGT discount becomes a 30% minimum tax. Negative gearing on existing homes acquired after May 12 2026 can no longer offset salary income. Sounds like a win for first-home buyers. But when you look at the details. The new rules do not apply to: widely held trusts (REITs), superannuation funds, build-to-rent developments, and "private investors supporting government housing programs." Every single vehicle through which institutional capital owns Australian housing is exempt. Permanently. The mum-and-dad investor buying an established unit in 2028 will pay the higher tax. The Canadian pension fund holding the same building through a widely held trust pays nothing extra. Same dollar of gain. Roughly twice the tax depending on who's holding it. This policy raises house prices in three different directions at once. One: existing homes. Every property owner with an investment as of May 12 2026 is grandfathered under the old generous rules. If they sell, they lose that. So they don't sell. Ever. The supply of established homes shrinks permanently. Less stock, same buyers, prices stay frozen at the top. Two: new homes. The only retail-accessible negatively geared asset left is the new build. Every investor who would have bought existing stock now bids on new construction. Developers price the tax break straight into the asking tag. First home buyers, who can't use negative gearing the same way, are bidding against investors whose effective price is subsidised by Treasury. They lose those auctions every time. Three: rents. Small landlords stop entering. Build-to-rent operators, who are exempt, take over rental supply. Their cost structure (corporate debt, asset management fees, returns to overseas pension funds) requires higher rents. Rent goes up. Saving for a deposit takes longer. Property prices keep climbing while the would-be buyer waits. Every variable that matters to a young Australian trying to buy a home moves against her. The policy was sold as the thing that would close the gap to ownership. The design widens it. What happens next is straightforward. The wealthy retail leave. Australia has been losing high-income professionals at an accelerating rate already. This budget gives the ones who can leave another reason. The struggling retail stay and pay. They rent from institutional operators for longer. They enter the housing market later, or never. Australia on a 20-year horizon is being repositioned as an institutional platform. Not a property-owning democracy. A platform.

Google wants to decide which citizens can access banks, tickets or public services. This is not security. It is enclosure. techjournalismus.ch/how-google-abu…

@MrKnesss @caitoz Is there a more pro-Israel flagship paper in the Western world? Just curious about what you mean by "intellectual dishonesty" ?

@caitoz Calling the NYT pro-Israel is the most intellectually dishonest thing you could say.

@ruthheasman In my view, kids should be thrown out of the nest at age 17. And that's being generous.

@iang_fc Yeah, I see it in my own kids. I’m always trying to push them out the door. They think I’m mental!

Most important tweet today

I don't see the US-China summit the same as others. The US have spent the last months disrupting 1/3 of China's oil and LNG, and now Trump is showing up like a mafia boss to explain that they can buy US energy, or they'll keep this up. And I guarantee you the US did just that.

@AriDavidPaul Sigh. There is no claim that Both sides lost Those Wars. Such a claim is nonsense bc only one side is implied here - Israel. And no one war has been stated. So it is impossible to analyse whether the other side has won/lost/been anialated. Get A Grip.

😂 You’re claiming both sides lost those wars? And that’s proper science or military affairs? It’s hard for me to believe you take yourself seriously when you write this stuff. You’re actually saying that any time a state failed to achieve its objectives but decimated the enemy, that we must say both sides *lost* the war. No…when Israel fights to survive and not be genocided, they don’t think it’s a loss when they only destroy half of Lebanon or Iran’s missile launchers.

@Flight1917 @BigBrotherWatch Fight!

No fairy tales. We will fight this. You know, we (the people) have been up against true evil for centuries and we're still here. The Davos crowd wants us to feel defeated. But remember: there are only very, very few people at the top. We outnumber them by the millions. Billions even.

🆔On paper, digital ID is “optional”. In reality, it could become unavoidable. That’s why it’s too early to say mission accomplished just yet! #No2DigitalID

@AriDavidPaul And, asking google, your favourite supporter, reveals ... a somewhat different answer:

The prevailing opinion in military circles is that if you did not achieve your objectives, then YOU LOST. In civilian circles, obviously, the propaganda machine spins wild to convince the populace that a loss was a win. But there is some science to military affairs. In short: Objectives -> Achieved or Not. Win or Lose. PS: there are other views on what winning/losing means in a war. But this above is probably the most reliable.

OK, that's a fail. Maybe you live in a different bubble to me? Maybe your world serves up the content you want? Maybe my world does the same? How to differentiate? Let's take your "Google bubble." Bc you posted it. 1. IRGC isn't the leadership of Iran. That's just a fact. It has some power which goes up and down. But right now, it's pretty clear that while the IRGC has military primacy, it has not the political primacy. Political power is strong and Israel had its hand in making it strong by assassinating the last leader. Well done! Which is to say, while IRGC is maybe more reliable on military affairs (maybe?), it is not reliable on political affairs. And it's job is to promise "a heavy price" on its enemies. Which is Israel. So take rhetoric with a grain of salt. IRGC's job is to defend against Israel. Ofc it is going to say bad things about Israel. Duh. 2. Israel is a "cancerous tumour" that must be removed. OK. That turns out to be a view that is gathering more consensus. Israel is proving to be the source of war. You might not agree. But if every country agrees, your view might not be that important. But see above. Rhetoric. 3. A "Final Solution" is clearly needed in ME. People have been being killed for 80 years. And why? Obviously a solution is needed. It would be nice if it was finally a solution. Is that a call to Germany 1940s actions? IDK, but if it is, it's particularly inept bc it didn't work for Germany, and it famously didn't work for the Middle East. So what point are you trying to raise? 4. Razed to the ground. IRGC Quds Force. Yeah. That's how you talk to troops. It's called rhetoric. Check out how IDF issues orders... Get a grip.

@AriDavidPaul Switching to google...

@Flight1917 @BigBrotherWatch We'll see! We'll see it coming to every Western government. And one day we'll tell fairy stories about how we lived without being identified and tracked and controlled every second of every day. But they'll just be fairy tales and our children will laugh at us.

@iang_fc @BigBrotherWatch The government can accommodate those who don’t want it. But the government doesn’t want to. Massive political pressure must ensue. Unfortunately, most politicians are bought and paid for. So we’ll see.