Larson Jones🟢

@nxt888 500k number fake. Saddam people collected data. Given population growth only shows flat from 2005-08. Well after invasion, it is the sectarian fighting. That many children dead would show a huge drop. Ironically 2003 invasion partly justified on bad survey prevent child deaths.

Iraq in 1991 negotiated a ceasefire. Saddam Hussein pulled back from Kuwait. The stated objective of the coalition was achieved. The UN mandate was fulfilled. The war was over. Twelve years of the most comprehensive sanctions regime ever imposed on a country followed. Five hundred thousand Iraqi children died. Not from bombs. From the sanctions. From the inability to import medicine. From the destruction of water treatment infrastructure. From the systematic economic strangulation of a country that had agreed to the terms it was given. Madeleine Albright was asked in 1996 whether the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it. She said: "We think the price is worth it." On camera. With her name attached. Then in 2003, after twelve years of compliance with weapons inspection regimes, after twelve years of sanctions, after twelve years of no-fly zones enforced by American and British aircraft over sovereign Iraqi territory: They invaded anyway. There were no weapons of mass destruction. They knew there were no weapons of mass destruction. The sanctions had worked. The inspections had worked. The compliance had worked. They invaded anyway. Because the compliance was never the point. The compliance was the process by which Iraq was weakened enough to be finished. Negotiations. Compliance. Sanctions. Inspection regimes. Another decade of negotiations. Invasion. This is the sequence. This is what "negotiations" produced for Iraq. Half a million dead children as the price of the ceasefire. Two million dead as the price of the invasion. A country that has not recovered twenty years later. This is the table they invite you to.

@EGYOSINT @UnitedStatesWar Because they plan on never replacing any of it?

@UnitedStatesWar Iran isn’t really worried about losing its entire navy or air force.

About 24 U.S. military aircraft and drones have reportedly been destroyed or crashed so far in the war with Iran, bringing the total losses to over $1 billion.

@flcro @nxt888 Coward because he didn't bomb. Just bomb the Iranian grid in 5 days. Flatten Kharg Island facilities to rubble. Accept Iran's response and just fix the damage. They can't fix theirs and if they somehow do hit it again. Without funds & stable electric grid good luck Iran.

@ThereYouGoAgain @nxt888 And I will add to that, that well-known maxim, “trust is like virginity - you can only lose it once”. Trump was exposed to the world yesterday as a blustering bully, a coward, a liar, a cheat, full of hot air but out of practical ideas. He can’t come back from that.

Future historians will mark this as the moment the American century ended. Not the financial crisis of 2008. Not the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Not any of the other candidate moments that analysts have proposed as the inflection point. This. The 48-hour ultimatum that became a request for joint control of a strait the United States does not border. The strike on Ras Laffan in a country with American bases. The Haifa refinery burning behind supposedly impenetrable air defenses. Trump calling China. China saying no. The strait remaining closed after the deadline for its reopening passed without consequence. These are not the symptoms of a declining power managing a difficult adversary. These are the documented, timestamped, publicly witnessed moments when the architecture of the last thirty years of American global dominance showed its structural limits. And what makes this different from every previous American setback is not the scale of the defeat. It is the visibility. Vietnam was visible but distant. Afghanistan was visible but long. Iraq was visible but complicated. This is happening in the most strategically important energy geography on earth, in real time, with global markets responding to every development, with every government watching its screens and updating its models. The visibility is the mechanism by which it changes everything. Because the power of unipolarity was never only military. It was always also psychological. It was the belief held by allies and adversaries and neutral parties alike that American power was the fixed point around which everything else organized. Iran did not defeat the United States militarily. Iran defeated the belief. And beliefs, once defeated in front of enough witnesses, do not come back. The witnesses are counted in billions. They all watched. They all know what they saw. The fixed point moved.

@RnaudBertrand Trump bombs Kharg island to rubble Iran loses tactically & strategically. They lose all revenue. Just matter time before collapse. Ruins Iran for 20 yrs which Trump wants to avoid. Hit Iran, let them respond. Fix what they hit back. You can repair they can't. You win they lose.

I don't think people realize just how extraordinary what we're witnessing with Iran is. I was arguing with a dear journalist friend of mine yesterday who was telling me that Iran was winning, yes, but only on the strategic level, not tactically. The type of thing a skinny kid getting stuffed in lockers in highschool tells himself to make himself feel better: "These people will BEG to work for me in ten years. Everyone knows jocks peak in highschool. They'll literally beg." 😏 I think that's precisely wrong, and that's what makes the Iran war different. As of now, Iran is in fact holding its own tactically too. Think about other U.S. wars of aggression these past few decades. Take Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, etc. (the list is unfortunately very long). The pattern was roughly always the same with an immense power differential between aggressor and victim. These wars were, by and large, imperial: the empire attempting to crush a much weaker people whose only realistic recourse was guerrilla resistance. And that is when they actually had the will to resist: some - like Libya - barely even bothered, just resigning themselves to their fate (despite being, at the time, the richest country in Africa). As spectators of these wars, if you had any moral sense, the dominant emotion was a kind of helpless disgust: you were watching a giant stomp through someone else's house. Sure, the U.S. actually lost many - if not most - of these wars, famously replacing the Taliban with the Taliban or being expelled with their tail between their legs from Vietnam, but the power differential was no less real for it. It's just that power doesn't always guarantee victory: sometimes the giant can't kill everyone, and eventually tires of trying. But the “victories” won this way were always pyrrhic at best: the people endured, yes, but what they were left with was a country in ashes that takes decades to rebuild. Meanwhile, in the grand scheme of things, the giant walked away with little more than a bruised ego. Iran is - remarkably - proving to be an entirely different beast: when others were merely surviving a giant, Iran appears to be able to compete with one. What just happened over the past 48 hours is the best illustration of this. You had the President of the United States issue a formal ultimatum: reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or we "obliterate" your power grid. Iran's response was essentially: we dare you, if you do this we'll make all your Gulf allies uninhabitable within a week. And, as we saw, Trump backed down: pretexting non-existent "VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS" with Iran, he said his ultimatum no-longer applied (or, rather, became 5 days). Adding he now envisaged the Strait of Hormuz being “jointly controlled by me and the Ayatollah.” To the amusement of Iran’s diplomacy (x.com/IraninSA/statu…). That, folks, is a textbook tactical victory. It is, remarkably, Iran demonstrating in this instance that it had escalation dominance over the United States of America. That is, the ability to credibly threaten consequences so severe that the US - for perhaps the first time since the Cold War - found it preferable to stand down. That's no skinny kid being locked in a locker dreaming of revenge fantasies. That's the kid grabbing the bully's wrist mid-shove and watching his face change. And it's not the only tactical victory in this war so far. Take the episode over the Israeli attack on Iran's South Pars gas facility. Iran had warned that if that happened U.S. allies in the region - including Israel - would face a symmetrical response. And they delivered: famously devastating Qatar's Ras Laffan facility - which produced roughly 20% of global LNG supply - and leading, according to Qatar themselves, to a $20 billion loss of annual revenue for the next 5 years (oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-…). Not only that but they also managed to hit Israel's Haifa refinery (aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/19…), one of the country's most strategic and protected sites. The result was Trump distancing himself from the South Pars attack, saying that Israel had "violently lashed out" unilaterally and that "NO MORE ATTACKS WILL BE MADE BY ISRAEL pertaining to this extremely important and valuable South Pars Field." Israel then said it wouldn't strike Iran energy sites anymore (bloomberg.com/news/articles/…). From where I stand, that's another tactical victory. It is, at least, Iran demonstrating that is can fight back **symmetrically** against the U.S. and its allies. Not through asymmetric resistance with IEDs hidden in the roadside or traps hidden in the jungle, but eye for eye, and against some of the most heavily protected sites on the U.S.'s side. That's qualitatively different from any other adversaries the U.S. has directly fought in recent wars. There's plenty more, such as the pretty relevant fact that Iran has gained control of the single most strategic energy chokepoint on earth and the U.S. is finding it impossible to break that control. To the point where Trump has been reduced to publicly begging China - of all countries - for help, which given Trump's ego mustn't have been easy to do. Only to be told no. By China. And by everyone else he asked. This is the topic of my latest article: how this is, in fact, the first genuine "multipolar war." First, in the narrow sense: because Iran is revealing itself to be a genuine pole of power - not a superpower, but an actor that cannot be submitted, which is all multipolarity is. And second, because the war itself is accelerating multipolarity everywhere else: the U.S. has never been more isolated, never looked weaker and its security guarantees have never been more hollow. In my article I lay out the full scoreboard - military, economic, political - and explain why this war has already changed the world, regardless of how it ends. Enjoy the read here: open.substack.com/pub/arnaudbert…

@andy9716 @RKelanic We ask the Taliban to hand him over and if they did we never would have gone into Afghanistan. They gave some half-ass answers about guests or not handing Muslim over. That they would confine him, etc. Blah blah blah ..

@ThereYouGoAgain @RKelanic The US attacked Afghanistan to get Bin Laden AND get rid of the Taliban, because it was they who had harboured Bin Laden and provided the infrastructure, protection & facilities that allowed Al Qaeda to prosper.

This creative misreading of the Suez Crisis misses the point. Trump’s Iran war is already the US’s Suez Moment — the inflection point where US strategic decline becomes painfully undeniable. Britain, France and Israel lost Suez because they overestimated their own military and economic strength. Israel was acting as a revisionist and expansionist power, and tag-teamed with stronger Western allies to attempt to redraw Mideast borders in a supposedly “preventive” war against Nasser’s Egypt— in that case, the fear that Nasser would close the Suez Canal. *The war itself* then provoked Nasser to close canal. 🤦🏼‍♀️ Sounds familiar, eh? The author wrongly concludes, however, that Uk, France & Israel’s mistake was backing down, and hence, destroying their own credibility. The ACTUAL mistake was starting the war to begin with. Fighting for the sake of “preserving credibility” is like chasing losses at a casino. Genuine credibility can’t be manufactured by fighting. It naturally flows from vital national interests. The U.S. doesn’t need to “prove” it will fight for its core interests, like defense of the homeland from attack. The credibility of retaliation to attack on the U.S. homeland is inherent. (Kind of like how Iran’s threats to retaliate to US/Israel attacks on its territory were also inherently credible. Trump was foolish to discount them.) Where U.S. leaders have screwed up too many times is in trying to manufacture false credibility when the issues at stake *don’t* threaten core U.S. interests — like regime change in Iran, ending Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, etc. and all the other demands Israel foisted on the US-Iran nuclear talks. Everyone knows Iran cares a lot more about its own survival than the U.S. cares about Iran’s survival. The war is existential for Iran but NOT existential for the US. That means the balance of interests favors Iran, and always will, no matter what crazy hoops the U.S. jumps itself through, at great cost, to try and prove otherwise. That’s how we ended up fighting 20 years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. They outlasted us and everyone knew they eventually would. Let’s hope Trump deescalates the conflict and avoids the credibility trap in Iran, which leads only to quagmire. @defpriorities wsj.com/opinion/americ…

@timesmith912 @DanCollins2011 Why is it that Iran can seem to never shoot down any aircraft over their own airspace? Why is every plane supposedly shot down over Kuwait or Iraq.

@DanCollins2011 isn"t it interesting that all the military aircraft that has crashed to the ground in the past 3 weeks in this Iran war just fell out of the sky for no apparent reason. This doesn’t happen anywhere else……………...

18 aircraft down due to friendly fire or malfunction. At some point, it’s better to take the L’s instead of make the military guys look foolish. It’s disgusting.

@AlBuffalo2nite So they are threatening the very survival of 100 million people by denying them water. Hmmm.....against countries who denied the use of their bases for the attack on Iran. Makes Trump claim Iran regime is a threat to everyone

Iran can wipe drinking water off the map... This isn’t politics anymore… this is survival. Iran just put the Gulf on notice: “If our power grid gets hit… your water gets hit.” Let that sink in. These nations don’t have rivers… they don’t have lakes… they don’t have backup. They have desalination. And without it… they have nothing. Kuwait → ~90% dependent Oman → ~86% Israel → ~75% Saudi Arabia → ~70% (largest on Earth) Bahrain → ~60% Qatar → ~50% UAE → ~42–50% That’s ~100 MILLION people whose drinking water comes from a handful of coastal plants. Take those out… You’re not talking inconvenience. You’re talking dehydration… collapse… mass panic… within DAYS. And this isn’t theoretical anymore. Plants have already been hit. Qeshm lost water to villages. Bahrain facilities targeted. This is the first time in modern warfare that WATER infrastructure is being openly positioned as a primary target. Not oil. Not bases. Water. That’s escalation on a completely different level. Because once you weaponize water… There is no slow bleed. It’s immediate. This is what modern conflict looks like now: Not just who controls territory… But who controls whether populations can drink. #SilentMajoritySpeaks #AStoneGroove

@RadioFreeTom Kharg island is Iran's main oil hub. They aren't going to destroy it. They would be up shits creek without it. Even if the US takes it, no oil goes out. Then post conflict they get it back intact. If they bomb it they will be offline for a decade.

Price of Iwo Jima was 7000 KIA and 19,000 wounded

@AndrewS73717843 @BraddrofliT The problem is there isn't a magical cut over. Sworn in Feb, pass 1st budget Aug/Sep don't start impacting 6 months or yr later. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

@BraddrofliT A simplified, source-based comparison of economic performance across recent presidents. Uses GDP (BEA), jobs (BLS), and deficit as % of GDP (CBO), with clear methodology. Provides a basis for evidence-based evaluation.

They scream about the economy but the receipts keep embarrassing them. • Most of the poorest states? Republican-controlled. • Most recessions? Started under Republicans. • Deficits? Lowered by Democrats. • Job growth? Dominated by Democrats. • GDP? Stronger under Democrats. This isn’t opinion. It’s a pattern. Republicans sell “trickle-down.” America gets f**ked.

@modernmaegor @Yung_Spengler Iran has massive water issues. They are constantly fighting with the Taliban because Iran water comes from rivers originating in Afghanistan. The Taliban are building dams, diverting water and causing big issues in Iran.

@Yung_Spengler And where **does** Iran get its water from? How vulnerable are those sources to attack? Are they in any way close to running low on water already?

But the US doesn’t have escalation dominance. The next step on the ladder is civilian/energy infrastructure. Iran’s power grid is decentralized and only 3% of its water from desalination plants Gulf & Israeli power grids= far more centralized and they get 60%+ water from desal.

@A_M_R_M1 @barnes_law Silly

🚨 Breaking News: Russian Defense Minister: Yes, what we are saying is true: Iran possesses an offensive missile system that the United States does not have. There are highly advanced missiles that have not yet been used. Iran has a stockpile of missiles capable of destroying the entire Middle East, not just Israel. We call on the United States and Israel to immediately stop the war and declare the military operation against Iran a failure. Otherwise, the losses and damage will be a surprise. That is all.

@VladTheInflator Did someone draw 6 red lines on a map and say this is a disaster. You could draw 6 lines anywhere if they invaded. Do you think Iran would launch an attack on their own oil installation ending their ability to ship oil for the next 20 yrs.

The goal here is to create anger in the US. 5,000 Marines slaughtered so Trump can launch a full decade long invasion of Iran. Its a fucking nightmare. I never though ANYONE would be this fucking stupid.

@shipwreckshow Not saying reason but they weren't in a position to do it. Not enough weapons caliber they wanted, command control network not ready, etc.

Here is what I'll never get my head around. If Iran has been such a threat to the US, why didn't they attack us when "Biden" was president? When our military was in shambles? That would have been prime time for Iran (or any country tbh) to attack with a vengeance. But they didn't and not enough people talk about that.

@nxt888 The US bombed because they didn't invade North Vietnam. They didn't invade N Vietnam because they wanted to avoid direct conflict with China like the Korean War. US moved troops, soldiers, artillery into North, Vietnamese forces would have lasted no longer than North Korean army

Here is something American culture cannot process and has spent fifty years refusing to process: Vietnam did not win because of luck. Vietnam did not win because America made mistakes. Vietnam did not win because of Soviet weapons or Chinese support. Vietnam won because Vietnamese people were better at this war than Americans were. Better strategists. Better at understanding the terrain. Better at sustaining morale across decades of unimaginable suffering. Better at building an underground economy of resistance that no bombing campaign could touch. Better at turning every American escalation into a recruitment tool. Better at knowing what they were fighting for and why it was worth dying for. General Võ Nguyên Giáp, who defeated both the French and the Americans, was a history teacher before he was a general. He had no formal military training. He studied the Vietnamese landscape, the Vietnamese people, the psychology of colonial occupiers, and he designed a strategy around all of those things. He understood something American generals, with all their training, all their technology, all their experience, did not understand: This war would be won by whoever could outlast the other side's will to continue. Not firepower. Will. And he was right. He was right about the French. He was right about the Americans. The most powerful military on earth was out-thought by a history teacher from a colonized country. That is not an accident of history. That is not a mistake or a miscalculation. That is what happens when you underestimate people. When you look at a rice farmer and see someone beneath you. When your own arrogance becomes your greatest strategic liability. America's arrogance cost it Vietnam. That arrogance has never been honestly examined. It has never been corrected. Which is why the same pattern keeps repeating in different countries with different names.

@MehdiJalali So attacking international shipping with the aim of collective punishment is therefore a war crime? Are you saying Iran is a war criminal?

Attacking power plants is collective punishment and is by definition a war crime, and it is also a failed policy, as is clear from the start. Iran has at least three cards to play in retaliation. It will black out the entire region. It will cut the internet cables on the seabed. It will close the Bab al-Mandab Strait. The lesson Mr. Trump should have learned by now is that when you threaten someone’s very existence and talk about overthrowing the Iranian regime, you can be sure that they will climb the "escalation ladder" with you all the way. So you will never achieve the escalation dominance. Thinking of #Defenseless_People

@wanglaurentceo Wow Iran's response is we will make war on the world If attacked. Hmmm.....just proving I guess Trump's point.

@MFactologist @AhmadulXadim @nxt888 Trump did it 2019-2021. Biden ended it. So I guess my Trump maybe comment wasn't far off. Not sure what your decade comment is about because it all happened as ISIS started to fall.

@ThereYouGoAgain @AhmadulXadim @nxt888 That oil was only illegal in the minds of the pedo psychopaths that wage war for hegemony. And here you are defending the illegal actions of the Epstein class.

Slaves once knew the master’s language better than their own grandparents’ tongues. That did not prove the master was right. It proved the whip had been busy. So spare me this childish line about "perception." Yes, people accept dollars. Because the United States spent generations making access to trade, energy, credit, and survival run through its currency. That is not a natural vote of confidence. That is what happens when a financial system is backed by aircraft carriers, coups, sanctions, assassinations, and economic siege. The dollar circulates widely for the same reason fear circulates widely. Because empire made itself expensive to refuse. You are looking at the scar and calling it consent. You are looking at conditioned dependence and calling it trust. You are looking at a protection racket that scaled itself to the size of the planet and calling it "perception." No. Perception is not everything. Power is. And the whole world is now learning, slowly and painfully, that once fear begins to crack, the myth of inevitability cracks with it.

@adamscochran Dual use infrastructure is a legitimate target in war. Obviously those in favor of the bombing have a loose definition of dual use. Those opposed definitions are completely inflexible. Once the other side does it then each side alters their definition.

Striking civilian electrical infrastructure is a war crime. The President is threatening war crimes because of an oil price. Congress must impeach, or the cabinet must invoke the 25th amendment. This is unacceptable and outside of the authority of the President.