Watch it before you say that.
He tries to sound like a neutral reporter so if that’s your bias going in you will probably find it confirmed.
But then explain why Iran gives him access to their country and has a regime leader sit with him. I’ve seen them sit with 2 and they were both invested in Iran.
Also I’ve scoured for feet on the street and his tone on that front is different from all the others. His tone and language does match the Iranian regime party line though.
I have no bias going in, was just trying to understand if you decided he was emotionally invested only because he was there and getting access or if there was something more to it.
It’s my read on him. He’s trying to stay detached throughout. But he is emotionally invested on Iran and he buys their sides agreements it appears to me.
Also from anyone else who has been on the ground in Iran there is a much different tone about the conditions there. He’s nonchalant and “they do this all the time. They are used to sanctions. They are a welfare state and have free health care…” His language and message is very much want the regime has said on this topic.
It’s an interesting video but I view it as heavily shaded by regime propaganda and as a window into the regime’s view of the situation.
I watched it and it seems they were pretty honest about what they were reporting and the points of view.
I think it’s helpful to see it. He also talked very clearly about the challenges facing the people. He’s a reporter and getting sources isn’t easy. He’s reporting, not giving an opinion piece.
I didn’t see any emotional attachment. I saw him reporting on what he’s seeing and hearing. But everyone is free to their opinion.
Diesel hit $6.50 over the weekend. https://archive.is/ovetW
Iran is suffering yet surviving under economic warfare https://archive.is/jgEcl
A little misleading given THIS:
Quote: Not all of the undisclosed deaths are directly tied to the conflict but have involved U.S. personnel who were in the Middle East amid ongoing hostilities, this person said.
Meaning most likely from heart attacks, other natural causes and illnesses, and other causes not involving enemy action or wartime operations.
That happens stateside all the time as well.
Dumb report.
I don’t know if it’s dumb. I’d be interested in knowing if some of these accidents only happened because of the Iran war. Said differently, if there wasn’t a war, would they have taken place? If not, there is a pretty clear link.
Heart attacks/illnesses are a different story but there were other causes discussed in the article. And if more people are dying because of the Iran War (even if indirectly), that’s a story imo. Also, it should be disclosed either way.
That said, it should be clear what’s going on and the headline can be misleading.
All it says is that they were in the Middle East at the time.
That could include natural causes, suicides, etc.
Not even a mention of the deaths being related to wartime operations, much less enemy action.
Could be, yes. We need to know more. Not sure why we don’t.
The deaths weren’t even disclosed until now. More context is needed and hopefully we get it.
Interesting read on the diesel dilemma dynamics and
limited options the administration has to combat it.
For real this time or just another buy low opportunity ? If Iran initiated , perhaps shows
a change in strategy. OTOH I think they really want to influence Nov outcome as well. I guess it’s another wait and see event in this saga.
Who knows but agree on them trying to influence November. It’s why I don’t expect a deal until after the midterms.
I’m not sure about that. The midterms give them some leverage that they won’t have after the election in that we might be willing to accept a deal (probably the same as what’s been offered before) as an attempt to turn around perceptions before November. Plus, you know the Saudis want some help.
We’ve already demonstrated that we’re not really down for the fight, but the Houthis don’t have unlimited resources, and Iran loses Hormuz leverage when that side calms down.
On the other hand, they might think they can further damage DT and the US economy by maintaining pressure on oil and associated prices.
One thing is certain - they’re controlling the tempo right now.
I think the leverage is djt’s legacy. But you may be right if they get a good deal out of it.
Yea, from reading that and just my general layperson’s understanding of the economics of it, I think that is likely a bad idea.
I don’t see them giving up that leverage even with a deal. Best case they play nice for a couple of months.
US Delegation can’t stand seeing pictures of children we killed.
© 1999-2025 CoogFans.com