Da9ny

Hey @AnaKasparian, since you were a coward & deleted this post... let's explain a basic concept that even your basic brain can figure out. First, my OP to you was about how you purposely left out KEY CONTEXT that you felt so brave to add here (for about 5 seconds at least). Second, I can do it too (don't worry, I won't delete it later): Israel should've dealt with Hezbollah the way UNIFIL & the Lebanese Government failed to do a long time ago. If they don't want Israel in Lebanon, they should have figured their shit out a long time ago. Now stay tf out of the way and sit in your corner, bitch. And yes, I said what I said.

Oil falls below $75 for the first time since March as Hormuz traffic begins to recover nbcnews.com/business/energ…

The party is over @BorisJohnson. Resign.

Demanding that Iran end its support for Hezbollah is effectively equivalent to demanding that it abandon one of the central pillars of its regional security strategy. A country willing to launch direct attacks on Israel in response to events in Beirut is demonstrating that its relationship with Hezbollah is not a disposable bargaining chip but a long-term strategic commitment. If President Trump makes these demands the centerpiece of negotiations, one of two things will happen: either he will be forced back into a conflict he does not want, or he will end up tolerating the very behavior he promised to stop as Iran continues supporting Hezbollah. The credibility of threats to resume military action is also questionable. Trump himself has acknowledged the limits of what military force can achieve. If the United States is unwilling to commit the resources necessary to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force or physically remove Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles, then what exactly would be the objective of another war? The more Washington threatens action without following through, the more American deterrence risks eroding. That is particularly problematic given that Iran's perception of U.S. resolve appears to have weakened during the conflict itself. Meanwhile, diplomatic contacts continue in Switzerland, and Tehran has little incentive to make major concessions. If Trump's goal is ultimately a negotiated agreement, repeated military threats may not bring him closer to that objective. They could instead lock him into commitments that are either politically or strategically impossible to fulfill. The broader reality is that America's leverage over Iran was limited before the war and may be even more limited afterward. Any successful policy will have to start from that fact rather than from assumptions about what Washington can compel Tehran to do. #iran

No Ambassador @dannydanon, you don't know the first thing about UN law. As a matter of procedure, there is no rule that grants Member States an unrestricted right to personally attack UN officials, nor is there a rule prohibiting officials or the presiding officer from responding procedurally. International civil servants serve the Organization, not individual Member States. Article 100 specifically requires Member States to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and Secretariat staff and not seek to influence them in the discharge of their functions. Personal attacks aimed at intimidating, or pressuring UN officials, breach that obligation.

Watch: During a UN discussion, an attempt was made by Special Representative @_VanessaFrazier to interrupt my remarks and shut down legitimate criticism. I refused to be silenced.