Oil tanker traffic disregarding Iran's military threat/claims is a political fall out, isn't it?

pic.twitter.com/0OsD6uidYq

— Latinx Adjacent Doctor PhD (@TonerousHyus) June 23, 2026

They are pivoting back to the lifting of oil sanctions and pretending there is no requirement on what the money can be used for.

I mean, there are requirements on what it can be used for, believe it has to be at market price so blow to Chinamen, and money is to be escrowed.

The also say there is nothing in the MOU about nuclear programs even though Trump, Vance and Rubio spend all day reiterating that Iran will NOT HAVe A NUCLeAR PROGRAM EVER. Nope, MOU is not clear enough for them so they score one for the Gay ayatollah.

It's a true sickness.

Iran's Iman's and IRGC are jihadists. Their goal is to destroy America and Israel who are the infidels

Ayatollah Ali Khamenel, "when you chant Death to America!, it is not just a slogan - it is a policy".

The IRGC directs polity. Deals simply buys time for the regime to rebuild its power. Deals do not alter their core behavior. They are liars.

This would represent the anti-Abraham Accords approach. https://t.co/WWgQaYtEwn

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) June 24, 2026

The first little domino of the US being shut out of the ME?

rgag12 said:

---

This would represent the anti-Abraham Accords approach. https://t.co/WWgQaYtEwn

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) June 24, 2026

The first little domino of the US being shut out of the ME?

---

Recall Qatar has viewed itself as "neutral" and assisted in the negotiations along with Pakistan.

This also may be specific to certain interests Qatar has and want to protect, particularly around LNG.

It's also a one sentence summary of an article from the Financial Times, which is totes not biased at all.

To be honest, DeSantis is not helping himself with that tweet.

rgag12 said:

---

This would represent the anti-Abraham Accords approach. https://t.co/WWgQaYtEwn

— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) June 24, 2026

The first little domino of the US being shut out of the ME?

---

Fine with me. Let them deal with Iran.

This makes some sense.

https://instagr.am/p/DZ-M65sBjW4

It makes no sense.

And she is speaking with a microphone mounted to a fork with a thick accent and a South Asian Lina Hidalgo vibe.

For those who do not wish to watch, its a pure propaganda spot with all the tired, proven wrong, Hate America Party talking points.

I'm old enough to remember when leftists and the media were whining that a barrel of oil would be $135 by July.

that was 45 days ago.

24 June: $70.36

more trolling.

the key being, if the strait isn't reopened. it was.

sts7049 said:

---

more trolling.

the key being, if the strait isn't reopened. it was.

---

what's the price of a barrel of oil today?

LMCane said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

more trolling.

the key being, if the strait isn't reopened. it was.

---

what's the price of a barrel of oil today?

---

$69

I was kind of impressed that posting the price of oil is trolling. Bizarre take, but it being below $70 probably does feel like trolling to the Hate America Party.

LMCane said:

---

I'm old enough to remember when leftists and the media were whining that a barrel of oil would be $135 by July.

that was 45 days ago.

24 June: $70.36

---

Probably helps that there is a ceasefire and an MOU that helps oil flow again. Also, if we truly were 4 weeks away from running out of petroleum reserves, I'm pretty sure 135 would have been attainable.

Tucker's source.

Now we know why his opinion is idiotic.

My hope is to give President Trump more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace. Peace through strength AND diplomacy💪🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/Ihjo4A5jid

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) June 25, 2026

Even Randy knew it was time to stfu about principles. Makes him slightly better than his father AND his mentee.

Israel is predictably incensed at the prospect of the Trump deal moving forward with Iran.

"Ending a war is one thing. Lifting sanctions on Iran without getting much of anything in return is something else and entirely new. It constitutes a grave strategic mistake.

Money is fungible. Every dollar released to the regime will fuel domestic repression and nuclear weapons development, among other deadly projects."

FURY

74OA said:

---

Israel is predictably incensed at the prospect of the Trump deal moving forward with Iran.

"Ending a war is one thing. Lifting sanctions on Iran without getting much of anything in return is something else and entirely new. It constitutes a grave strategic mistake.

Money is fungible. Every dollar released to the regime will fuel domestic repression and nuclear weapons development, among other deadly projects."

FURY

---

This is an OPINION article from the WaPo.

The quote above is from Amichi Chikli, Israel's Minister of Diaspora Affairs, which means his primary job is to write opinion pieces such as the above.

It also incorrectly characterizes the procedures and timing of sanctions relief.

Not posting the source of the article, disguising the link which itself is opaque as to the source of the article and not mentioning either the author, the "publisher", that it is an opinion piece, and that it is written by the person in the Israeli government responsible for spreading the pro-Jewish, Israeli first sentiment including combatting antisemitism... that seems deceptive to me.

Edit: Simply providing a screenshot could help and no one has to click an opaque / blind link.

Three things need to happen for this conflict to be considered a success. The current regime has to fall, the strait has to be fully open, and the uranium has to be out of the country. I am not sure what Trump thinks he has actually accomplished yet.

74OA said:

---

I didn't disguise anything. WaPo articles won't open without a subscription, so I used Archive Today to bypass the firewall. That link style is how they offer articles.

It is an opinion piece, but as the article clearly shows it's written by a minister in the Israeli government. You really think he's not projecting his government's concerns?

Israel's unhappiness with the tentative agreement has been well published ever since it became public.

How about you address the issues he raised rather than attacking me for simply offering it for discussion.

---

Great. I am glad you pointed this out. Because primary to his role is promoting Jewish, not just Israeli relations and combating antisemitism.

Quote:

---

The goal to improve Israel-Jewish diaspora relations, combat antisemitism, and create education and Israel experience program

---

Any why should I address what he said when you didn't? Other than "Israel is predictably incensed"?

And regardless of firewalls, link formats and the like, it is NOT DIFFICULT and rather EXPECTED that you cite the author and source when quoting and linking, particularly with your common and committed use to opaque hyperlinks.

This is not a new issue with your article links. And its not attacking you, its calling out the poor formatting and framing. To me it comes across as misleading given how incredibly easy (and informative) to add just the basic information.

Below is a much better example of linking an article.

74OA said:

---

Of course, what else would you expect an Israeli government minister to do?

The fact that he's speaking for his government doesn't make the issues he raised irrelevant because they're also Jewish concerns.

In particular, his discussion of Israel's broader ME-wide worries about increased Islamist extremism as a result of the tentative US-Iran deal is directly pertinent to this thread.

Israel's objections are seen by the WH as a major obstacle to Trump's deal going through which makes them worth discussion despite your attempt to discredit the author.

EDIT: Just saw your subsequent three edits to your original post. FYI, I could give a flying **** about how you think things should be posted here. Read my posts, don't read them, I don't care.

---

I did not discredit the article nor the author. But I think people should be aware when something is taken from an opinion piece written by a guy paid to present a viewpoint from a singular perspective, particularly when ZERO information and context is given on the linked article and provided "quote".

Israel's "objections" have been well-overplayed by all sides though no doubt they legitimately exist.

I have zero issue with the article, its viewpoints or the author. I take issue when things are not presented in a forthright manner particularly when doing so is not hard.

Sorry about your feelings. Suggesting you improve the way you link articles should not ruffle you so much.

Noted,

Gaw617 said:

---

Three things need to happen for this conflict to be considered a success. The current regime has to fall, the strait has to be fully open, and the uranium has to be out of the country. I am not sure what Trump thinks he has actually accomplished yet.

---

Well, to your points:
1) We have a new regime, because all the old people are gone
1b) We will have better relationship with this new regime, thereby making them act like a new regime, compared with the old one
2) Once the agreement is in place, the strait will be open to traffic again - nevermind it was open before hand.
2b) Iran may or may not charge a fee to help navigation and maintenence of the strait (though I suspect if they get 300billion, they'll drop this)
3) Iran agrees to remove the uranium at a later date and open to inspectors, but it's burried so deep they can't get to it, so it's pretty much out of the country

Winning!

Tell that to the oil tanker that was just attacked by drones from Iran

Gaw617 said:

---

Tell that to the oil tanker that was just attacked by drones from Iran

---

I thought POTUS and Pete said the Strait was open regardless of what Iran said?

Also, are we sure this is an Iranian drone? And not a false flag? Or an operative inside Iran. Sure would be convenient for a certain someone to try and sabotage peace.

The Singapore container ship hit by a single / drone "projectile" with no casualties and minor damage?

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Gaw617 said:

---

Tell that to the oil tanker that was just attacked by drones from Iran

---

I thought POTUS and Pete said the Strait was open regardless of what Iran said?

Also, are we sure this is an Iranian drone? And not a false flag? Or an operative inside Iran. Sure would be convenient for a certain someone to try and sabotage peace.

---

So trolling and ignoring the facts posted hours ago. Nice broth, nice!