> perhaps the White House is making up

There's your answer.

it seems the message flew over your head

this isn't a poll about what you or I believe, it's pointing to the existence of at least one lower-noise avenue than the ones pursued

observe that your position is not verifiable by the world at large, while cryptographically signed messages would be veriable by us individuals across the whole world.

one may counter that the US could make up a large number of fake crypto key / Iranian associations; but surely to the extent that Iran has a functioning regime, surely it could use the IAEA as a channel to communicate the Iranian cryptographic key observations like:

* Khamenei confirms meeting Aragchi in person and Aragchi has chosen such and such a public key

* Aragchi confirms meeting Khamenei in person and Khamenei has chosen such and such a public key

* and so on for all players interested in participating in confirming the present regime or establishing a new one amidst chaos.

(if you don't have control over your physicists at a nuclear power plant, then you don't have control over your regime)

There's nothing to cryptographically verify, the white house is making all of this up.

Regardless of what is the actual case, those who have the correct interpretation would be vindicated if my protocol were followed.

Why would you oppose a protocol that vindicates the correctness of your interpretation if you are so certain that you are right?

Perhaps because you don't feel very certain that you are right...

I don't oppose anything. The protocol can't be followed if the white house is making things up (which they've been doing since the beginning of this war -- remember we've already "won" multiple times?). It's great that you have a protocol for verifying identity, that's a great cryptography use-case. It doesn't help when the person talking is just lying though, hence there's no proof available, cryptographic or otherwise.

The IAEA is an international body, IF your interpretation was correct and my proposal were followed we'd see messages by Iran that verify such and such public keys for such and such figures and functionaries in Iran (through IAEA), with Trump claiming without proof that they made concessions, since in your scenario it should be in Trumps proclaimed interest to publish such a signed message, so it would help in the case that Trump were lying. Protocol instructs to ignore any communications by counterparty that was not signed. Unsigned communications don't count as happened.

Yea, it’s pretty obvious Trump is lying in an attempt to manipulate the market / voter sentiment. And poorly, too.

Iran was attacked by Israel and the US. They are not "terrorists", they are logically defending themselves. Many of these companies play a role in the attack against Iran and general Zionist expansionism.

Attacking noncombatants is the literal definition of terrorism. “Play a role” is bullshit rationalization.

Yes, the US and Israel are terrorists for attacking non-combatants. I don't think that was ever in question. They literally started this illegal war by killing an entire school of girls.

Their comment is on topic, your's is not, and also what you're doing is against site guidelines.

Just... what does it say about a person who reads LotR and then thinks "I'll name my company after a corrupted magical artifact"? The intent to do evil is right there in the name I think.

Iran is attacking the military that's preemptively attacked them. It's the US and Israel that have placed antagonistic military installations throughout the Middle East.

I don't think that's "terrorism" as much as it is self defense. The Haitian Slave Revolt and Indigenous American Pueblo Revolts come to mind as analogous military actions that produced positive results.

> don't think that's "terrorism" as much as it is self defense

Everyone says this. If October 7 had limited itself to military targets, this would have been different. If current polling showed Gazans pushing for only military retaliation, I think things would be different.

Everyone has the right to self defense. But everyone also gets judged by how they do it.

> Haitian Slave Revolt

Claimed territory with a plan for maneouvre. Not particularly comparable outside minor tactical elements.

> Indigenous American Pueblo Revolts come to mind

This is a good analogy. I’ll have to read up on it more. To wit, however, they eventually accepted the new—awful, unfair and racist, I may add, but survivable and superior to the alternative of endless war—status quo.

> This is a good analogy. I’ll have to read up on it more. To wit, however, they eventually accepted the new—awful, unfair and racist, I may add, but survivable and superior to the alternative of endless war—status quo.

Well the Spanish returned and ultimately subjugated them but it's considered the reason that the South West was able to retain its indigenous culture and language to a degree not seen elsewhere.

Mind you this was 1680, which kind of brings into perspective how barbaric the Zionists have been to essentially recreate one of the greatest crimes in human history hundreds of years later, with a supposed framework of human rights that had developed since then.

I don't need a "foreign power" to tell me to boycott Israel. Israel's well documented actions are enough.

The New York Times are the same people who spread the lie about Iraq having WMDs, they are not credible, and in fact have been proven to be incredibly biased when it comes to wars in the Middle East.

Israel and the US targeted many schools in Gaza. They killed tens of thousands of children. This strike was clearly intentional and very much in line with all other Zionist actions.