The tweet is cut, so it isn't making a point yet, just a comparison in kills, and people's imaginations seem to have taken the OOP for a typical chauvinist.

Now, the actual point is shit, but not because they're some kind of democrat, but because the analysis is simply mistaken. I'd call that an ultra

[–] ThermonuclearHoxha@hexbear.net 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Copying the first two tweets:

the US and Israel killed Ali Khamenei the Supreme Leader along with many other leading political and military leaders, and at least 3500 babies, children, women and men. In return Iran appears to have killed around 50 irrelevant Israelis and Americans. [Note: End of OOP post] Even if you assume they are hiding many losses, it's likely not more than 100 or so irrelevants. In terms of the material damage there is a similar imbalance especially considering the place Iran started from given the decades of economic terror siege, and the closing of the Strait was at the point of beginning to inflict major damage.

If you think this was enough to establish deterrence and prevent the war from being restarted again soon, just ask yourself the very simple question: Would any rational person not happily take that exchange ratio over and over and over again?

You kill a few dozen [redacted, CW: Epstein]-settlers, and in exchange I kill your Supreme leader and thousands of others? They will always take that exchange without a moment's hesitation.

Apr 7, 2026 · 11:56 PM UTC

Iranian MP Sayyid Mahmoud Nabavian, deputy chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said shortly before the latest phase of the Israeli-US-Epstein regime's war on Iran how many they believe they have to take out to successfully establish deterrence, and he said 3 to 4K US troops. And that's right. Either that, or you impose equivalent material pain through keeping the Strait closed. That's an exchange they will make sure to never repeat.

But now, why would they not just use the two weeks to find the targets in the leadership they want to kill again, restock and replenish and get assets in place, and restart again in two weeks after another round of Barak Ravid Witkoff Kushner Mossad jerk off sessions for the media?

After all, if you kill a Supreme Leader they'll just get a ceasefire out of you within 40 days at the most, who cares, that's nothing.

Apr 8, 2026 · 12:08 AM UTC

[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 1 points 1 hour ago

It's a great material balance if you ignore the strategic damages such as collapse of american power projection in the region (losses to radars, AD inventories, bases emptied) and the decline of the petrodollar.

Straight up COD team death match type analysis.