正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

🇺🇦 A political divide inside Ukraine may be more dangerous than anything happening on the front lines. Our geopolitics expert Brandon breaks down why surrendering the Donbas is both militarily logical and politically impossible at the same time. "𝘖𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵... 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘴 𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘯𝘪𝘱𝘳𝘰, 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘒𝘺𝘪𝘷 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘖𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦." If the fortress belt goes, there may be nothing left to negotiate with. Brandon Weichertshow more

Mario Nawfal

3,913,574 subscribers

58,054 次观看 • 5 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 条评论

Andy froemel 的头像

Andy froemel5 天前

It is wild that people want to keep sending our tax dollars to Ukraine to slow down the inevitable. Ukraine doesn’t have the manpower to take back the land it lost.

Hidden Forge 的头像

Hidden Forge5 天前

The Donbas debate involves both battlefield realities and Ukraine’s political constraints. Whether giving up territory would actually improve Ukraine’s security remains heavily disputed.

相关视频

🇺🇦🇷🇺 Ukraine may be running out of time to make a deal. The new U.S.-Russia talks may look like another diplomatic ritual. Glenn Diesen thinks there is one important difference this time: the battlefield is moving faster than the negotiations. He argues Washington has a stronger incentive to seek a settlement because Ukraine is facing simultaneous pressure from depleted air defenses, manpower shortages, economic problems and Russian advances across several fronts. And that creates an ugly negotiating problem. The longer Ukraine waits, Diesen argues, the worse the eventual deal could become. Donbas remains the central territorial obstacle. But if fighting continues another six months, he says Ukraine could lose far more than Donbas, with Sumy, Kharkiv and eventually Zaporizhzhia potentially coming under much greater pressure. Russia has the opposite calculation. Diesen says Moscow believes time is improving its position, meaning every additional battlefield gain raises the price of peace. Yet he also thinks Russia has reasons to negotiate now rather than gamble on a Ukrainian collapse that could leave behind decades of instability. So there may finally be something both sides can agree on: Waiting could make whatever comes next considerably worse. Glenn Diesen

🇺🇦🇷🇺 Ukraine may be running out of time to make a deal. The new U.S.-Russia talks may look like another diplomatic ritual. Glenn Diesen thinks there is one important difference this time: the battlefield is moving faster than the negotiations. He argues Washington has a stronger incentive to seek a settlement because Ukraine is facing simultaneous pressure from depleted air defenses, manpower shortages, economic problems and Russian advances across several fronts. And that creates an ugly negotiating problem. The longer Ukraine waits, Diesen argues, the worse the eventual deal could become. Donbas remains the central territorial obstacle. But if fighting continues another six months, he says Ukraine could lose far more than Donbas, with Sumy, Kharkiv and eventually Zaporizhzhia potentially coming under much greater pressure. Russia has the opposite calculation. Diesen says Moscow believes time is improving its position, meaning every additional battlefield gain raises the price of peace. Yet he also thinks Russia has reasons to negotiate now rather than gamble on a Ukrainian collapse that could leave behind decades of instability. So there may finally be something both sides can agree on: Waiting could make whatever comes next considerably worse. Glenn Diesen

Mario Nawfal

286,147 次观看 • 20 天前

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran may be transforming a strategic victory into a catastrophic miscalculation. Geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert says that for weeks, Iran had gained the upper hand. America's long-range missile stockpiles were running low, its Gulf posture had become more vulnerable, regional states wanted the fighting to stop, and Tehran had the leverage. Now, Brandon thinks Iran may be pushing that leverage too far. During the interview, reports emerged that Iranian lawmakers were preparing legislation that would reportedly: - Ban U.S and Israeli vessels from transiting the Strait of Hormuz. - Block cargo linked to Israel. - Demand compensation from countries that supported the war. - And impose penalties of up to 20% of the cargo value on violators. At the same time, reports suggested Iran was seeking transit fees of between 5% and 7% of each cargo's value. If those numbers hold, Brandon believes the entire diplomatic process could collapse. Not because Iran lacks leverage, but because it may be asking for more than the world is prepared to accept. His concern isn't Washington, it's everyone else. Countries that quietly shifted toward Iran after the war may begin asking whether Tehran is now overplaying its hand. And if that happens, Trump gets exactly what he needs. A political justification to walk away from negotiations, argue that Iran was never serious about peace, and escalate the war. Brandon believes that changes everything. Because the fastest way to lose a winning position is convincing your opponent they have nothing left to lose. Brandon Weichert

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran may be transforming a strategic victory into a catastrophic miscalculation. Geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert says that for weeks, Iran had gained the upper hand. America's long-range missile stockpiles were running low, its Gulf posture had become more vulnerable, regional states wanted the fighting to stop, and Tehran had the leverage. Now, Brandon thinks Iran may be pushing that leverage too far. During the interview, reports emerged that Iranian lawmakers were preparing legislation that would reportedly: - Ban U.S and Israeli vessels from transiting the Strait of Hormuz. - Block cargo linked to Israel. - Demand compensation from countries that supported the war. - And impose penalties of up to 20% of the cargo value on violators. At the same time, reports suggested Iran was seeking transit fees of between 5% and 7% of each cargo's value. If those numbers hold, Brandon believes the entire diplomatic process could collapse. Not because Iran lacks leverage, but because it may be asking for more than the world is prepared to accept. His concern isn't Washington, it's everyone else. Countries that quietly shifted toward Iran after the war may begin asking whether Tehran is now overplaying its hand. And if that happens, Trump gets exactly what he needs. A political justification to walk away from negotiations, argue that Iran was never serious about peace, and escalate the war. Brandon believes that changes everything. Because the fastest way to lose a winning position is convincing your opponent they have nothing left to lose. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

440,306 次观看 • 1 个月前

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐆𝐋𝐀𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐀𝐘: 𝟕𝟒% 𝐎𝐅 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇 𝐉𝐎𝐁𝐒 𝐖𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐓𝐎 𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐍-𝐁𝐎𝐑𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐄𝐑𝐒 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐀𝐈𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐀 𝐍𝐄𝐎-𝐍𝐀𝐙𝐈 Douglas Murray just delivered one of his most devastating indictments of the UK political class — and the parallels to America are impossible to miss. The core number: since 2008, 𝟕𝟒% 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐣𝐨𝐛𝐬 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧. For 𝟐𝟎 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬, British voters have asked for reduced immigration every single election and been promised action. Instead, immigration went up. Murray’s question cuts to the bone: “𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦?” The answer, apparently, is nothing. “𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵, 𝘯𝘦𝘰-𝘯𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘴.” Murray pointed to a single man with a swastika tattoo being used to discredit entire movements: “𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘳𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵? 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵.” Then he exposed the double standard that no British politician will touch. When an imam is caught preaching violence in a mosque, “𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.” But when working-class Brits protest mass stabbings and terrorism? The entire crowd gets labeled neo-Nazis. Murray’s framework for what’s happening is devastating in its simplicity: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦.” The primary problem is 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭. The secondary problem is public anger. Starmer’s government is obsessed with policing the anger while doing nothing about the cause. The same playbook runs in America. Call border enforcement racist. Label parents at school board meetings domestic terrorists. Smear anyone who questions the status quo as an extremist — then wonder why trust in institutions evaporates. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐞.

M.A. Rothman

48,897 次观看 • 5 个月前

🇺🇦🇷🇺 Jamison Firestone: Putin may be betting on German politics as much as the Russian army. Russia doesn't necessarily have to break Ukraine on the battlefield. It may only have to outlast its European funding. Russia analyst Jamison Firestone argues there are now two wars running simultaneously. The first is military. Russia continues grinding against Ukraine’s defensive lines while preparing, in Firestone’s view, for another major mobilization. He estimates Moscow would need roughly another 760,000 troops to sustain another 18 months of fighting. But the second war is political. Firestone believes Putin is betting that European governments could change before Russia runs out of time. Germany is particularly important. If political power shifts far enough to the right and German funding for Ukraine dries up, Firestone argues the consequences could be decisive. “If the government in Germany changes and the money stops, right? That’s it. They’ve won.” That helps explain why frozen Russian assets are suddenly back at the center of the debate. Ukraine has announced a $27 billion budget hole, while Europe is facing decisions about how to finance the war beyond the money already committed. So the race is no longer simply Russia versus Ukraine. It’s Russia’s manpower and economic endurance versus Ukraine’s military resilience and Europe’s political patience. Putin may not need Europe to become pro-Russian. He just needs it to become tired. Brandon Weichert

🇺🇦🇷🇺 Jamison Firestone: Putin may be betting on German politics as much as the Russian army. Russia doesn't necessarily have to break Ukraine on the battlefield. It may only have to outlast its European funding. Russia analyst Jamison Firestone argues there are now two wars running simultaneously. The first is military. Russia continues grinding against Ukraine’s defensive lines while preparing, in Firestone’s view, for another major mobilization. He estimates Moscow would need roughly another 760,000 troops to sustain another 18 months of fighting. But the second war is political. Firestone believes Putin is betting that European governments could change before Russia runs out of time. Germany is particularly important. If political power shifts far enough to the right and German funding for Ukraine dries up, Firestone argues the consequences could be decisive. “If the government in Germany changes and the money stops, right? That’s it. They’ve won.” That helps explain why frozen Russian assets are suddenly back at the center of the debate. Ukraine has announced a $27 billion budget hole, while Europe is facing decisions about how to finance the war beyond the money already committed. So the race is no longer simply Russia versus Ukraine. It’s Russia’s manpower and economic endurance versus Ukraine’s military resilience and Europe’s political patience. Putin may not need Europe to become pro-Russian. He just needs it to become tired. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

216,472 次观看 • 13 天前

𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐀 “𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐔𝐌” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘 𝐈𝐓 John Stossel asked a simple question: do you want America to be like Sweden? The Left keeps saying yes. A Swedish-born economist says you have no idea what you’re asking for. Fifteen years ago, America and Europe grew neck and neck. Then Europe stalled. Today America is 𝟓𝟎% 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 — even though the EU has 100 million more people. The gap is now so wide that the poorest American state out-earns Spain, Italy, France, and Britain per person (Eurostat, Euronews 2026). Stossel’s verdict on the continent the Left idolizes: “𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘮.” Tourist money keeps it running. The growth is gone. Economist Sven Larson — who grew up in Sweden and wrote a book titled 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺: 𝘠𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯, 𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘛𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — explains how they got there. Start with taxes. The activists chant “𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩.” Larson’s answer: “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” The average Swedish worker already pays more in tax than you do. Then there’s the “free” health care. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺,” Larson says. “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥∗𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦.” European rules make it nearly impossible to fire anyone. “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦?” So they stop hiring. About 𝟒𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐔 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 now goes to welfare. Unions act like a mafia — shutting off power, stopping garbage collection, blocking the banks. When non-union Tesla moved in, postal workers refused to deliver the license plates for its new cars. The reward for all that “compassion”? Europe now has 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝’𝐬 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 — you have to scroll into the 20s to find one. The EU has stacked up 395,000 pages of regulation, including an entire AI Act, while America builds the future. So why won’t Europe’s leaders reverse it? Larson gives the honest answer: “𝘈 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯.” That isn’t a bug. That’s the 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐄𝐔𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐄 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐖 𝐀 “𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐄𝐒𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐔𝐌” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐋𝐄𝐅𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐔𝐒 𝐓𝐎 𝐂𝐎𝐏𝐘 𝐈𝐓 John Stossel asked a simple question: do you want America to be like Sweden? The Left keeps saying yes. A Swedish-born economist says you have no idea what you’re asking for. Fifteen years ago, America and Europe grew neck and neck. Then Europe stalled. Today America is 𝟓𝟎% 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫 — even though the EU has 100 million more people. The gap is now so wide that the poorest American state out-earns Spain, Italy, France, and Britain per person (Eurostat, Euronews 2026). Stossel’s verdict on the continent the Left idolizes: “𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘮.” Tourist money keeps it running. The growth is gone. Economist Sven Larson — who grew up in Sweden and wrote a book titled 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺: 𝘠𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯, 𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦, 𝘛𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 — explains how they got there. Start with taxes. The activists chant “𝘸𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩.” Larson’s answer: “𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩? 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘢𝘹 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘶𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.” The average Swedish worker already pays more in tax than you do. Then there’s the “free” health care. “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺,” Larson says. “𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥∗𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦.” European rules make it nearly impossible to fire anyone. “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦?” So they stop hiring. About 𝟒𝟎% 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐔 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 now goes to welfare. Unions act like a mafia — shutting off power, stopping garbage collection, blocking the banks. When non-union Tesla moved in, postal workers refused to deliver the license plates for its new cars. The reward for all that “compassion”? Europe now has 𝐳𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝’𝐬 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 — you have to scroll into the 20s to find one. The EU has stacked up 395,000 pages of regulation, including an entire AI Act, while America builds the future. So why won’t Europe’s leaders reverse it? Larson gives the honest answer: “𝘈 𝘭𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘷𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯.” That isn’t a bug. That’s the 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥. 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐦. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

M.A. Rothman

13,772 次观看 • 2 个月前

🔥🗳Glenn Greenwald just explained why America may be closer than ever to a major third-party movement. And his argument is hard to ignore. Tucker adds "something is coming... you feel that." Speaking with Tucker Carlson, Greenwald argued that more Americans are becoming open to political movements that exist completely outside the Republican-Democrat framework. Why? Because people increasingly hate BOTH parties. And they’re starting to hate the political system itself. Greenwald points to Ross Perot as proof that a credible alternative can break through when it speaks to an issue voters actually care about. But the bigger problem is this: The two parties may be far more aligned than Americans realize. “The biggest myth, the biggest lie of our political system is that the two political parties can’t agree on anything.” “They’re always at each other’s throats.” “The reality is that the two political parties agree on 90%, at least, of major policy issues.” And that changes how you see American politics. The endless partisan warfare gets all the attention. But on many of the biggest issues, both parties operate inside the same narrow boundaries. Greenwald described it as both parties playing within the “40-yard lines.” Different rhetoric. Different voters. Different branding. But a remarkably similar political system underneath. And more Americans are starting to notice. That’s why the idea of a genuine alternative is becoming harder to dismiss. The barriers are enormous. Ballot access. Money. Media. Institutions. The entire political establishment. But if enough people stop believing the two-party system represents their choices, those barriers may eventually become irrelevant. As Greenwald put it: “I think we’ve never been more right for it because both parties are hated and the system itself is hated.” “People are craving a credible alternative.” And then came the line that may matter most: “Something is coming. You feel that.” Maybe the next political revolution won’t come from the left. Or the right. Maybe it comes from people who are simply done choosing between the same two parties. Join us below and build a real third party movement🧵 Glenn Greenwald Tucker Carlson

🔥🗳Glenn Greenwald just explained why America may be closer than ever to a major third-party movement. And his argument is hard to ignore. Tucker adds "something is coming... you feel that." Speaking with Tucker Carlson, Greenwald argued that more Americans are becoming open to political movements that exist completely outside the Republican-Democrat framework. Why? Because people increasingly hate BOTH parties. And they’re starting to hate the political system itself. Greenwald points to Ross Perot as proof that a credible alternative can break through when it speaks to an issue voters actually care about. But the bigger problem is this: The two parties may be far more aligned than Americans realize. “The biggest myth, the biggest lie of our political system is that the two political parties can’t agree on anything.” “They’re always at each other’s throats.” “The reality is that the two political parties agree on 90%, at least, of major policy issues.” And that changes how you see American politics. The endless partisan warfare gets all the attention. But on many of the biggest issues, both parties operate inside the same narrow boundaries. Greenwald described it as both parties playing within the “40-yard lines.” Different rhetoric. Different voters. Different branding. But a remarkably similar political system underneath. And more Americans are starting to notice. That’s why the idea of a genuine alternative is becoming harder to dismiss. The barriers are enormous. Ballot access. Money. Media. Institutions. The entire political establishment. But if enough people stop believing the two-party system represents their choices, those barriers may eventually become irrelevant. As Greenwald put it: “I think we’ve never been more right for it because both parties are hated and the system itself is hated.” “People are craving a credible alternative.” And then came the line that may matter most: “Something is coming. You feel that.” Maybe the next political revolution won’t come from the left. Or the right. Maybe it comes from people who are simply done choosing between the same two parties. Join us below and build a real third party movement🧵 Glenn Greenwald Tucker Carlson

We The People Party

16,952 次观看 • 1 个月前

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐕𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂’𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐏𝐒𝐄 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐊𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐈’𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐏𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐓𝐘 An Iranian dissident journalist went on GB News and delivered what may be the most illuminating six minutes of analysis on Iran’s war from anyone who actually understands the regime from the inside. First, the leadership vacuum. He said the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is essentially invisible: “𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘰𝘫𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘢 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘪, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘈𝘐, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦”. He called it “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥’𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” — meaning nobody actually knows who is running the country right now. The people left to negotiate? “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘪”. The moderate voices have been k∗lled or removed. Only the hardliners remain — and they don’t want a deal. Then he revealed a conversation that explains 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 about the Islamic Republic’s philosophy. Khamenei’s own economic advisor once asked him: if we become friends with the United States, we’ll have higher economic growth. Khamenei’s response: “𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘰 𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺”. Read that again. The Supreme Leader of Iran 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 that the regime deliberately keeps its own people impoverished to maintain religious control. That’s not an accusation from the outside — that’s the regime’s own operating philosophy, from the top. He called it “𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮” — the Islamic Republic’s core ideology. 𝟒𝟓 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 of k∗lling American soldiers with roadside bombs, k∗lling Syrian citizens, attacking the U.S. embassy, attacking the U.K. embassy. He noted that the street the British embassy sits on in Tehran was renamed from 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 — after an IRA hunger striker — specifically to humiliate the British. The most important part: what do Iranians actually inside the country think? “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘳”. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐉𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐃𝐄𝐕𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂’𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐋𝐋𝐀𝐏𝐒𝐄 — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐀𝐋𝐒 𝐊𝐇𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐈’𝐒 𝐎𝐖𝐍 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐏𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐑𝐓𝐘 An Iranian dissident journalist went on GB News and delivered what may be the most illuminating six minutes of analysis on Iran’s war from anyone who actually understands the regime from the inside. First, the leadership vacuum. He said the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is essentially invisible: “𝘞𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘰𝘫𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘢 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘪, 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘈𝘐, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦”. He called it “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥’𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳” — meaning nobody actually knows who is running the country right now. The people left to negotiate? “𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘒𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘪”. The moderate voices have been k∗lled or removed. Only the hardliners remain — and they don’t want a deal. Then he revealed a conversation that explains 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 about the Islamic Republic’s philosophy. Khamenei’s own economic advisor once asked him: if we become friends with the United States, we’ll have higher economic growth. Khamenei’s response: “𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦. 𝘚𝘰 𝘐 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺”. Read that again. The Supreme Leader of Iran 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 that the regime deliberately keeps its own people impoverished to maintain religious control. That’s not an accusation from the outside — that’s the regime’s own operating philosophy, from the top. He called it “𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮” — the Islamic Republic’s core ideology. 𝟒𝟓 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 of k∗lling American soldiers with roadside bombs, k∗lling Syrian citizens, attacking the U.S. embassy, attacking the U.K. embassy. He noted that the street the British embassy sits on in Tehran was renamed from 𝐂𝐡𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐁𝐨𝐛𝐛𝐲 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐭 — after an IRA hunger striker — specifically to humiliate the British. The most important part: what do Iranians actually inside the country think? “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘳”. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

M.A. Rothman

47,731 次观看 • 5 个月前

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

𝐕𝐈𝐂𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐃𝐀𝐕𝐈𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐎𝐍 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐀𝐑” 𝐋𝐈𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐒. 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍 𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒. 𝐓𝐑𝐔𝐌𝐏 𝐃𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐘𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐓𝐎 𝐌𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐖𝐀𝐑 𝐈𝐍 𝐅𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐄𝐄𝐊𝐒. 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐒𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐀𝐑𝐃. Victor Davis Hanson — the most decorated classical military historian in America, author of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘴 and 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱, Hoover Institution senior fellow, lifelong scholar of how wars actually end — spent thirteen minutes on the Daily Signal this week doing what no cable news anchor has bothered to do since February. He compared this war to every other war in American history and then showed his work. His conclusion, in his own words: “𝘞𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 93 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦, 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘥𝘥𝘭𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘰𝘧-𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘲, 𝘠𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘎𝘢𝘻𝘢, 𝘓𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘯 — 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵, 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳.” Read that sentence and then read it again. 𝐒𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬. 𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝. That is not a Trump rally soundbite. That is Victor Davis Hanson, the man who wrote the textbooks on Thermopylae, Cannae, and the Pacific War, rendering verdict in real time on the fastest decisive American military victory since the First Gulf War, and arguably since 1945. Here is what Hanson walked through, and every single beat of it is lethal to the legacy narrative. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐃𝐢𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 Hanson opens by naming names. The Democratic grandees in the House and Senate. The New York Times. The Washington Post. NPR. PBS. The Wall Street Journal news section. And — this is the key part — the disaffected ex-MAGA right that spent six weeks screaming 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘐𝘐𝘐 from podcasts and Substacks. He points out that these two camps share 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧. First, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, because a Trump military success would destroy their entire post-2024 political project. Second, and more devastating: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧. Not one of them, Hanson notes, bothered to measure the Iran campaign against 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘶𝘭𝘧 𝘞𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘧𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘯. Not one of them asked how many missiles the U.S. had destroyed, whether American aircraft had been shot down (45 were lost in the First Gulf War alone), whether the enemy command structure had been taken out. Instead, they just asserted the conclusion they needed: 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳. That is not analysis. That is a feelings-forward prayer dressed up as journalism, and Hanson calls it for exactly what it is. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝: 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬, 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 Hanson’s single most important factual paragraph of the 13 minutes: “𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘬𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘭𝘪 𝘈𝘪𝘳 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” He lists them individually. Memorize this list, because it is the actual accounting of what 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥𝐢 𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 did to a regime that spent 46 years promising 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢: 𝐎𝐧𝐞. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — IRGC command network shattered. Qassem-era terror infrastructure leadership dead or in hiding. 𝐓𝐰𝐨. The regular Iranian Army — senior general officer corps hollowed out by precision strike. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞. The theocratic apparat — including the Supreme Leader himself. The Assembly of Experts is reportedly unable to convene. 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐫. The elected politicians — the facade government, the President, the Foreign Minister, the Majlis leadership. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐭. 𝐒𝐢𝐦𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐲-𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬. That is not a 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘮𝘪𝘳𝘦. That is not a 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. That is the most surgical decapitation of a hostile nation-state since the Japanese surrender ceremony on the USS Missouri. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞-𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝 Hanson then does something cable news cannot do in 45-second segments: he reconstructs the entire strategic arc. Three phases. Execute them in order. Win. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐞: 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Find the tunnels. Find the hidden airfields. Find the silos. Find the people in bunkers. Kill the command structure. Leave the regime with 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘦𝘴 and nothing with which to rebuild. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐨: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞. Hanson: “𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴.” Self-interested? Yes — Trump wanted oil prices down before midterms. But it was also, Hanson argues, to 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘢𝘯. Iran refused, betting that Western street protests and MAGA apostates would pressure Trump to fold. 𝐇𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝. 𝐇𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐝. 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: 𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. When Iran announced it would close the Strait of Hormuz to everyone who was not 𝘱𝘳𝘰-𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯, Hanson says Trump just took the pen out of their hand. “𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢. 𝘚𝘩𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘨𝘶𝘺𝘴.” Translation: 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧. 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐏𝐓 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬. That is not a close fight. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐎𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞 Here is the paragraph that should be read aloud on every network tonight and will be read aloud on none of them. Hanson, coolly: “𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘪𝘣𝘺𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘒𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘢. 𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘺.” Get the implications of that. Every American president from Truman to Obama — Democrat and Republican alike — hit 𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥-𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 in every major air campaign of the last 75 years. Truman flattened North Korean hydroelectric plants and killed civilians by the thousands. Clinton blacked out a million and a half Serbs and bombed Belgrade bridges on the Danube for weeks. Obama leveled Libyan television and ports. 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩, 𝐟𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐢𝐝𝐝𝐥𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐘𝐨𝐦 𝐊𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐮𝐫, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐲. He has kept the war confined to the regime’s war-making capability and left the civilian grid intact. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲. Every talking head who called this a 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳 owes Hanson an apology for not knowing the historical baseline he is using. $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐀 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 Hanson cites the economists now 𝘧𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦 at major research universities in Europe and the United States who have started to measure what the American counter-blockade is actually doing to Tehran. The number: $𝟒𝟎𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠. Lost oil sales. Lost petrochemical exports. Lost critical imports of mechanical goods, electrical components, and food. A regime that was already bankrupt before the war, that had hyperinflation eating its own middle class before the first bomb dropped, is now losing half a billion dollars every 24 hours. Hanson is blunt: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺. 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥, 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘳𝘥.” 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞: 𝐀 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐈𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Hanson’s most historically evocative passage is about the Iranian street. He notes that the regime’s ruling cliques are right now motivated by 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘴: they do not know who is in charge, they have watched 30-40-50 of their colleagues get killed, and they are fighting each other for the remains of power. But the fear underneath all of that is the one that matters: 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥. 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘺𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯'𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸.” Hanson’s historical parallel is devastating and correct. The Berlin Wall did not come down the day Reagan said 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘭𝘭. It came down 𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐄𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐭𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟. The collapse of the IRGC’s street-level power over 90 million Iranians may take exactly that long. But it is coming, and the mullahs know it, and that is why they are freelancing contradictory statements on Twitter every 12 hours while their own Supreme Leader is dead and nobody has been elevated. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐄𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐍𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐓𝐨 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐝 The closing minute of Hanson’s commentary is the hinge of everything. He warns that the coming negotiation is a trap unless it is structured correctly. His words: “𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘯𝘰 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 20 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥. 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥.” And then the hammer: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘒𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘢 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘴, 𝘎𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯 𝘕𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘰𝘮, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘦𝘨, 𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘴𝘦𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.” Translation: any JCPOA-style agreement that depends on the next Democratic president to enforce it is worthless on the day it is signed. The Iranian regime has never kept a deal. The Democratic Party has never enforced one. Therefore, Hanson concludes, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐮𝐢𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞. That is not a preference. That is a strategic necessity. Anything short of unconditional surrender or regime collapse just sets the clock ticking on the next war — this time with a nuclear-armed ayatollah. 𝐕𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐬. 𝐇𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝟗𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝟒𝟔-𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝟑𝟓 𝐝𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝟏𝟗𝟒𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐥𝐮𝐜𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤. 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦.

M.A. Rothman

89,898 次观看 • 5 个月前

😩 Britain has wasted ten years trying to square the Brexit circle that cannot be squared: how do you remove the barriers while refusing the structures that remove them? Starmer chose the Ming vase strategy with red lines that protected Brexit by making any meaningful reset impossible and leant heavily into Atlanticism. The red lines of the 2024 mandate stunted the EU reset and Burnham can’t easily escape this. He also needs to keep together a country still scarred by the Leave/Remain divide, while freeing Britain from red lines. This is why the security argument is vital - Russia. Ukraine. Trump. Energy. Food. Defence. Technology. Critical supply chains. Nick Boles’s proposed goods-only arrangement may ultimately be unacceptable cherry-picking to the EU. But domestically it creates political space to ask whether Britain’s security now requires a fundamentally different relationship with Europe. Andy Burnham doesn’t need to fight the next election shouting Single Market, Customs Union, freedom of movement. He needs a manifesto giving him a mandate to negotiate the deepest economic and security relationship with our European allies necessary to protect Britain’s national interest without repeating Starmer’s red lines. Then negotiate. If the electorate endorses that manifesto, Burnham isn’t breaking the previous mandate. He has won a new one. And for the first time since Brexit, Britain could sit down with Europe without tying both hands behind its back before the negotiations even begin. Britain’s chief EU negotiator Hamish Falconer MP says the Burnham government wants a deeper, more ambitious relationship with Europe on trade, services, security and technology. He also says plainly: We are part of Europe. The 2024 Brexit red lines remain … for now. But Falconer is deliberately talking about the art of the possible, while refusing to bind Labour’s next manifesto to those red lines. The world has changed since 2016; Britain can’t change its geography.

😩 Britain has wasted ten years trying to square the Brexit circle that cannot be squared: how do you remove the barriers while refusing the structures that remove them? Starmer chose the Ming vase strategy with red lines that protected Brexit by making any meaningful reset impossible and leant heavily into Atlanticism. The red lines of the 2024 mandate stunted the EU reset and Burnham can’t easily escape this. He also needs to keep together a country still scarred by the Leave/Remain divide, while freeing Britain from red lines. This is why the security argument is vital - Russia. Ukraine. Trump. Energy. Food. Defence. Technology. Critical supply chains. Nick Boles’s proposed goods-only arrangement may ultimately be unacceptable cherry-picking to the EU. But domestically it creates political space to ask whether Britain’s security now requires a fundamentally different relationship with Europe. Andy Burnham doesn’t need to fight the next election shouting Single Market, Customs Union, freedom of movement. He needs a manifesto giving him a mandate to negotiate the deepest economic and security relationship with our European allies necessary to protect Britain’s national interest without repeating Starmer’s red lines. Then negotiate. If the electorate endorses that manifesto, Burnham isn’t breaking the previous mandate. He has won a new one. And for the first time since Brexit, Britain could sit down with Europe without tying both hands behind its back before the negotiations even begin. Britain’s chief EU negotiator Hamish Falconer MP says the Burnham government wants a deeper, more ambitious relationship with Europe on trade, services, security and technology. He also says plainly: We are part of Europe. The 2024 Brexit red lines remain … for now. But Falconer is deliberately talking about the art of the possible, while refusing to bind Labour’s next manifesto to those red lines. The world has changed since 2016; Britain can’t change its geography.

Liz Webster

19,906 次观看 • 1 个月前

🇮🇷🇺🇦 What happens when a great power has no clear path to victory, but also no politically acceptable way to admit defeat? That may be the central problem facing Washington in Iran, according to Prof. Glenn Diesen. Diesen argues that Iran has effectively defeated the United States, but Tehran's demands for sanctions relief, unfrozen assets, reconstruction payments and an end to the wider regional wars create a dilemma for Washington: accepting those terms could be politically impossible, while refusing them risks trapping the U.S. in a war it has no obvious way to win. Trump may therefore try to declare victory and walk away, pointing to Iran's supposedly destroyed nuclear capabilities and arguing that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer strategically important. But Iran has leverage. Tehran can make an American withdrawal politically painful while maintaining enough pressure to prevent Washington from simply resetting the conflict and returning later. And this is where Diesen's warning matters. A great power pushed between humiliation and escalation may choose escalation. Iran therefore has to be careful not to push Trump so far that he concludes there is nothing left to lose. Meanwhile, the war is becoming harder to contain. Fighting is spreading through Yemen, with the Houthis striking Saudi-backed targets and reportedly hitting Saudi-linked shipping and infrastructure. Diesen argues that treating these groups simply as Iranian proxies misses the bigger problem: many have their own interests and conflicts that could continue even if Tehran wanted the war to end. The same applies to the emerging Middle Eastern security order. As confidence in permanent American protection declines, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and potentially Egypt are moving toward a new regional security architecture. Diesen sees two possible futures: competing blocs, where states seek security against one another, or an inclusive system that eventually brings Iran, and perhaps even Israel, into the same framework. The first creates another cycle of escalation. The second attempts to make security indivisible, so one country's security does not require another country's permanent insecurity. And then there is Ukraine. Diesen argues that the battlefield is increasingly becoming a war of attrition that Russia is slowly winning. Ukraine faces worsening manpower and ammunition problems, while a shortage of interceptor missiles is allowing Russia to use more air power and increasingly devastating glide bombs. Russia is also expanding attacks against Ukrainian logistics, ports, bridges, warehouses and energy infrastructure, while Ukraine continues striking deeper inside Russia to create pressure for negotiations. But if Moscow sees NATO expansion and Ukraine's role as a Western frontline as an existential threat, hurting Russia may not convince it to compromise. It may convince Russia that it has even more reason to continue fighting. Diesen's conclusion is bleak: both sides want the war to end, but they fundamentally disagree over what ending it means. For Russia, that means Ukrainian neutrality, territorial concessions and a political settlement. For Ukraine and its European backers, an unconditional ceasefire risks freezing the battlefield and giving Kyiv time to rebuild. So the wars in Iran and Ukraine are beginning to reveal the same dangerous pattern. The longer a conflict continues, the harder it becomes to separate victory from survival, and the harder it becomes for either side to back down without believing it is surrendering something existential. When the off-ramp disappears, escalation starts looking less like a choice and more like the only road left. Diesen's final warning was almost an afterthought: let's hope the conflict doesn't spread to Japan. He may have been joking. But these are not particularly reassuring times. Glenn Diesen

🇮🇷🇺🇦 What happens when a great power has no clear path to victory, but also no politically acceptable way to admit defeat? That may be the central problem facing Washington in Iran, according to Prof. Glenn Diesen. Diesen argues that Iran has effectively defeated the United States, but Tehran's demands for sanctions relief, unfrozen assets, reconstruction payments and an end to the wider regional wars create a dilemma for Washington: accepting those terms could be politically impossible, while refusing them risks trapping the U.S. in a war it has no obvious way to win. Trump may therefore try to declare victory and walk away, pointing to Iran's supposedly destroyed nuclear capabilities and arguing that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer strategically important. But Iran has leverage. Tehran can make an American withdrawal politically painful while maintaining enough pressure to prevent Washington from simply resetting the conflict and returning later. And this is where Diesen's warning matters. A great power pushed between humiliation and escalation may choose escalation. Iran therefore has to be careful not to push Trump so far that he concludes there is nothing left to lose. Meanwhile, the war is becoming harder to contain. Fighting is spreading through Yemen, with the Houthis striking Saudi-backed targets and reportedly hitting Saudi-linked shipping and infrastructure. Diesen argues that treating these groups simply as Iranian proxies misses the bigger problem: many have their own interests and conflicts that could continue even if Tehran wanted the war to end. The same applies to the emerging Middle Eastern security order. As confidence in permanent American protection declines, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and potentially Egypt are moving toward a new regional security architecture. Diesen sees two possible futures: competing blocs, where states seek security against one another, or an inclusive system that eventually brings Iran, and perhaps even Israel, into the same framework. The first creates another cycle of escalation. The second attempts to make security indivisible, so one country's security does not require another country's permanent insecurity. And then there is Ukraine. Diesen argues that the battlefield is increasingly becoming a war of attrition that Russia is slowly winning. Ukraine faces worsening manpower and ammunition problems, while a shortage of interceptor missiles is allowing Russia to use more air power and increasingly devastating glide bombs. Russia is also expanding attacks against Ukrainian logistics, ports, bridges, warehouses and energy infrastructure, while Ukraine continues striking deeper inside Russia to create pressure for negotiations. But if Moscow sees NATO expansion and Ukraine's role as a Western frontline as an existential threat, hurting Russia may not convince it to compromise. It may convince Russia that it has even more reason to continue fighting. Diesen's conclusion is bleak: both sides want the war to end, but they fundamentally disagree over what ending it means. For Russia, that means Ukrainian neutrality, territorial concessions and a political settlement. For Ukraine and its European backers, an unconditional ceasefire risks freezing the battlefield and giving Kyiv time to rebuild. So the wars in Iran and Ukraine are beginning to reveal the same dangerous pattern. The longer a conflict continues, the harder it becomes to separate victory from survival, and the harder it becomes for either side to back down without believing it is surrendering something existential. When the off-ramp disappears, escalation starts looking less like a choice and more like the only road left. Diesen's final warning was almost an afterthought: let's hope the conflict doesn't spread to Japan. He may have been joking. But these are not particularly reassuring times. Glenn Diesen

Mario Nawfal

244,431 次观看 • 1 个月前

$🚨 Juan O Savin & Josh Reid: Rothschild System Collapsing — Arrests Closer Than People Think Juan O Savin, Josh Reid, and Michael Jaco dive deep into the growing collapse of centralized financial control, the weakening of global power structures, and why many believe massive political and institutional changes are now unavoidable. This conversation goes far beyond headlines. As banking systems shake, public trust collapses, and global tensions rise, more people are beginning to question whether the old system built on debt, manipulation, secrecy, and control is finally starting to fracture. Juan breaks down the larger restructuring process happening behind the scenes politically, financially, and institutionally, while Josh connects current world events to escalating geopolitical pressure, intelligence operations, and the growing instability unfolding across the globe. The deeper this discussion goes, the more it points toward one major reality: ⚠️ The old guard is losing control ⚠️ The financial system is under massive pressure ⚠️ Public awakening is accelerating worldwide ⚠️ And major changes may be much closer than most people realize This is one of those conversations that makes you step back and realize the world may be entering a historic turning point unlike anything we’ve seen before. 🔥 If you’ve been feeling like the pace of events is accelerating and something bigger is unfolding behind the scenes… this episode is for you. 🎥 Full video: 🎙 Podcast releases tonight at 6PM PT on Podbean: 🌐 Juan O Savin: 🌐 Josh Reid: 🌐 Michael Jaco:$

🚨 Juan O Savin & Josh Reid: Rothschild System Collapsing — Arrests Closer Than People Think Juan O Savin, Josh Reid, and Michael Jaco dive deep into the growing collapse of centralized financial control, the weakening of global power structures, and why many believe massive political and institutional changes are now unavoidable. This conversation goes far beyond headlines. As banking systems shake, public trust collapses, and global tensions rise, more people are beginning to question whether the old system built on debt, manipulation, secrecy, and control is finally starting to fracture. Juan breaks down the larger restructuring process happening behind the scenes politically, financially, and institutionally, while Josh connects current world events to escalating geopolitical pressure, intelligence operations, and the growing instability unfolding across the globe. The deeper this discussion goes, the more it points toward one major reality: ⚠️ The old guard is losing control ⚠️ The financial system is under massive pressure ⚠️ Public awakening is accelerating worldwide ⚠️ And major changes may be much closer than most people realize This is one of those conversations that makes you step back and realize the world may be entering a historic turning point unlike anything we’ve seen before. 🔥 If you’ve been feeling like the pace of events is accelerating and something bigger is unfolding behind the scenes… this episode is for you. 🎥 Full video: 🎙 Podcast releases tonight at 6PM PT on Podbean: 🌐 Juan O Savin: 🌐 Josh Reid: 🌐 Michael Jaco:

Michael Jaco

16,337 次观看 • 4 个月前

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓: “𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝟒𝟖 𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐒” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔𝐊 𝐏𝐌 𝐖𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐓 𝐀 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑 Iranian activist Lily Moo went on GB News and delivered one of the most powerful testimonies you’ll hear about what’s actually happening inside Iran right now — and she did not hold back on the West’s failure to act. The numbers alone are staggering. According to regime figures themselves, more than 𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 were massacred “𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 48 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 400 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯.” The IRGC and imported foreign militia from Iraq and Afghanistan carried out the k∗llings. Moo described Iranians calling out to Donald Trump and the international community during the January protests — chanting from the streets while “𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘙𝘎𝘊.” They were invoking the 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 — actual international law — begging for intervention. Then she turned to the UK. The attacks in 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 — ambulances hit, the British Jewish community targeted — are, she says, “𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤.” Iranian businesses in London attacked by regime supporters. British security compromised. And yet the UK Prime Minister stands there claiming he won’t “compromise British security” while actively refusing to support a rescue mission for 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬. Moo’s response was devastating: “𝘠𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘳, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘜𝘒 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺.” She addressed the question of civilian casualties head-on. The primary school in 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 that was hit? It was built inside an IRGC base. Interviews with children from that school revealed the teachers 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 when the bombing began — using children as human shields. Iranian people are convinced it was an IRGC missile. The regime places schools inside military installations and then parades the wreckage for propaganda. Iran is in its 𝟑𝟏𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐨𝐮𝐭. Phone calls to families are nearly impossible. Hospitals and schools are being packed with civilians so the regime can use them as targets. The IRGC is depleting. And Iranians want one thing: “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦.” Churchill sent troops to Normandy. That is why Britain is free today. Moo is asking who will be this generation’s Churchill for Iran. 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐢𝐭.

𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐓: “𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐀𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐃 𝐈𝐍 𝟒𝟖 𝐇𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐒” — 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔𝐊 𝐏𝐌 𝐖𝐎𝐍’𝐓 𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐓 𝐀 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐑 Iranian activist Lily Moo went on GB News and delivered one of the most powerful testimonies you’ll hear about what’s actually happening inside Iran right now — and she did not hold back on the West’s failure to act. The numbers alone are staggering. According to regime figures themselves, more than 𝟒𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 were massacred “𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 48 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 400 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯.” The IRGC and imported foreign militia from Iraq and Afghanistan carried out the k∗llings. Moo described Iranians calling out to Donald Trump and the international community during the January protests — chanting from the streets while “𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘙𝘎𝘊.” They were invoking the 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 — actual international law — begging for intervention. Then she turned to the UK. The attacks in 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐬 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 — ambulances hit, the British Jewish community targeted — are, she says, “𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘩𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤.” Iranian businesses in London attacked by regime supporters. British security compromised. And yet the UK Prime Minister stands there claiming he won’t “compromise British security” while actively refusing to support a rescue mission for 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬. Moo’s response was devastating: “𝘠𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘳, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘜𝘒 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 90 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘢𝘺.” She addressed the question of civilian casualties head-on. The primary school in 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐛 𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳𝐠𝐚𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 that was hit? It was built inside an IRGC base. Interviews with children from that school revealed the teachers 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 when the bombing began — using children as human shields. Iranian people are convinced it was an IRGC missile. The regime places schools inside military installations and then parades the wreckage for propaganda. Iran is in its 𝟑𝟏𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐨𝐮𝐭. Phone calls to families are nearly impossible. Hospitals and schools are being packed with civilians so the regime can use them as targets. The IRGC is depleting. And Iranians want one thing: “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘮𝘦.” Churchill sent troops to Normandy. That is why Britain is free today. Moo is asking who will be this generation’s Churchill for Iran. 𝟗𝟎 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐢𝐭.

M.A. Rothman

12,779 次观看 • 5 个月前

🇮🇱🇮🇷 Israeli generals are leaking that Netanyahu was warned Iran would never fold, and that leak may matter more to the war's next chapter than anything in Washington Most of our guests expect a bigger war this autumn. Robert Barnes thinks that fear rests on three shaky assumptions, and the third is the one nobody is pricing. The first is that America can absorb Iran's counterattacks, when the plan to destroy the launchers first has failed every time it's been tried. The second is that a president under pressure at home can afford another round. The third is Israel. Someone inside the IDF has leaked to the Hebrew press that Netanyahu was told Mossad's forecast of an Iranian collapse was false, that Iran would only harden, and that this was never shared with the CIA. Robert reads it as the pragmatic wing declaring itself, and he notes Israel has finally admitted the Haifa refinery was hit. If Netanyahu is replaced by a general who wants a mission with an exit, the appetite for an existential fight with Iran goes with him. Robert Barnes Brandon Weichert

🇮🇱🇮🇷 Israeli generals are leaking that Netanyahu was warned Iran would never fold, and that leak may matter more to the war's next chapter than anything in Washington Most of our guests expect a bigger war this autumn. Robert Barnes thinks that fear rests on three shaky assumptions, and the third is the one nobody is pricing. The first is that America can absorb Iran's counterattacks, when the plan to destroy the launchers first has failed every time it's been tried. The second is that a president under pressure at home can afford another round. The third is Israel. Someone inside the IDF has leaked to the Hebrew press that Netanyahu was told Mossad's forecast of an Iranian collapse was false, that Iran would only harden, and that this was never shared with the CIA. Robert reads it as the pragmatic wing declaring itself, and he notes Israel has finally admitted the Haifa refinery was hit. If Netanyahu is replaced by a general who wants a mission with an exit, the appetite for an existential fight with Iran goes with him. Robert Barnes Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

225,562 次观看 • 14 天前

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Iran may not need to defeat America militarily if it can simply outlast it Washington is still getting significant amounts of oil through Hormuz under military protection, but the bigger question is whether it can keep doing it. The U.S. Navy is burning through readiness and munitions maintaining the operation, while Iran only needs enough oil and revenue moving to keep its economy alive. And Tehran may have the advantage in that kind of contest. Iran has spent decades living under sanctions and economic pressure. Americans and Europeans haven't. Fuel shortages are already appearing in parts of the U.S. and Europe, Saudi crude deliveries to European refiners are set to disappear in October, and traffic through Hormuz has fallen again after briefly recovering. Meanwhile, the Saudi front is getting worse. The Houthis have now struck a fuel facility at Riyadh's international airport and are openly warning that “what is coming will be greater.” Even incursions into Saudi Arabia's southern provinces can no longer be dismissed outright, although whether the Houthis could actually seize and hold Saudi territory remains heavily disputed. Then there's the nuclear question. Iran's Mohsen Rezaei has now raised the possibility of leaving the NPT if the conflict continues. There's no claim yet that Iran is building a bomb, but the war has fundamentally changed Tehran's calculation. And while Washington is trying to manage all of that, Europe is moving toward another potentially dangerous moment with Russia. Putin probably does not intend to deliberately attack NATO. What's worrying is everything surrounding that possibility. Military exercises, hybrid attacks, false-flag fears and a weakening NATO create exactly the environment where one side can misread what the other is doing. So America may now be facing two wars of endurance at once. Iran is betting the West cannot sustain the economic and military cost of containing it indefinitely. Russia may be betting Europe cannot sustain Ukraine indefinitely. And in both cases, time itself is becoming part of the weapon. Brandon Weichert

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Iran may not need to defeat America militarily if it can simply outlast it Washington is still getting significant amounts of oil through Hormuz under military protection, but the bigger question is whether it can keep doing it. The U.S. Navy is burning through readiness and munitions maintaining the operation, while Iran only needs enough oil and revenue moving to keep its economy alive. And Tehran may have the advantage in that kind of contest. Iran has spent decades living under sanctions and economic pressure. Americans and Europeans haven't. Fuel shortages are already appearing in parts of the U.S. and Europe, Saudi crude deliveries to European refiners are set to disappear in October, and traffic through Hormuz has fallen again after briefly recovering. Meanwhile, the Saudi front is getting worse. The Houthis have now struck a fuel facility at Riyadh's international airport and are openly warning that “what is coming will be greater.” Even incursions into Saudi Arabia's southern provinces can no longer be dismissed outright, although whether the Houthis could actually seize and hold Saudi territory remains heavily disputed. Then there's the nuclear question. Iran's Mohsen Rezaei has now raised the possibility of leaving the NPT if the conflict continues. There's no claim yet that Iran is building a bomb, but the war has fundamentally changed Tehran's calculation. And while Washington is trying to manage all of that, Europe is moving toward another potentially dangerous moment with Russia. Putin probably does not intend to deliberately attack NATO. What's worrying is everything surrounding that possibility. Military exercises, hybrid attacks, false-flag fears and a weakening NATO create exactly the environment where one side can misread what the other is doing. So America may now be facing two wars of endurance at once. Iran is betting the West cannot sustain the economic and military cost of containing it indefinitely. Russia may be betting Europe cannot sustain Ukraine indefinitely. And in both cases, time itself is becoming part of the weapon. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

363,913 次观看 • 6 天前

🇷🇺🇺🇦 Russia fired 27 ballistic missiles at Kyiv and Ukraine intercepted exactly ONE as America's empty shelves become the whole world's problem Read that number again. One out of twenty-seven. Zelensky said the reason out loud: there are no Patriot interceptors left to fire. Nine dead that night. At least seventeen more killed in today's wave, one of the deadliest of the year. Russia isn't hiding what it's doing, it's capitalizing on an American arsenal the Iran war bled dry. Major General Randy Manner, 36 years in uniform and former acting director of the agency that guards America's most dangerous weapons, connects it all. Why every adversary on earth read the depletion reports as an invitation. Why the missiles now coming off American production lines will stay home while allies wait empty-handed. Why a $12.7 million interceptor against a $100,000 drone is a losing equation no budget can fix, and why the Ukrainians fighting on nickels and dimes are the best in the world at the war America forgot to prepare for. Then the sentence that should end every Pacific briefing: "If someone wanted to do something in Taiwan, we'd be screwed." And his warning about the next war is scarier still, because it doesn't involve missiles at all. The Iran war is ending. Its bill is just starting to arrive, and Kyiv is paying it nightly. Brandon Weichert

🇷🇺🇺🇦 Russia fired 27 ballistic missiles at Kyiv and Ukraine intercepted exactly ONE as America's empty shelves become the whole world's problem Read that number again. One out of twenty-seven. Zelensky said the reason out loud: there are no Patriot interceptors left to fire. Nine dead that night. At least seventeen more killed in today's wave, one of the deadliest of the year. Russia isn't hiding what it's doing, it's capitalizing on an American arsenal the Iran war bled dry. Major General Randy Manner, 36 years in uniform and former acting director of the agency that guards America's most dangerous weapons, connects it all. Why every adversary on earth read the depletion reports as an invitation. Why the missiles now coming off American production lines will stay home while allies wait empty-handed. Why a $12.7 million interceptor against a $100,000 drone is a losing equation no budget can fix, and why the Ukrainians fighting on nickels and dimes are the best in the world at the war America forgot to prepare for. Then the sentence that should end every Pacific briefing: "If someone wanted to do something in Taiwan, we'd be screwed." And his warning about the next war is scarier still, because it doesn't involve missiles at all. The Iran war is ending. Its bill is just starting to arrive, and Kyiv is paying it nightly. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

251,681 次观看 • 1 个月前

🇷🇺🇪🇺 Europe may be preparing for the wrong Russian war Ukraine just launched one of its largest attacks on Russia, with Moscow saying more than 1,600 drones were intercepted, including hundreds headed toward the capital. At the same time, European intelligence warnings are getting darker. Officials cited by The Guardian say Russia could test NATO within months through sabotage, drones, missiles or even a limited incursion, while France reportedly says it is already conducting undisclosed conventional responses to Russian hybrid attacks. Brandon thinks Europe is misreading the danger. He does not believe Moscow is preparing a conventional invasion of NATO. Instead, he expects Russia to keep grinding through Ukraine while potentially targeting the infrastructure and supply networks supporting Kyiv. But there’s a much more dangerous possibility. Europe could prepare so aggressively for a Russian attack that the preparations themselves help create the confrontation everyone claims to be trying to prevent. European governments increasingly see rearmament not merely as defense policy, but as a way of rebuilding the continent around a new military economy. Meanwhile, the battlefield itself keeps moving. That leaves Europe in an increasingly ugly position. Russia doesn't need to invade NATO for this to become a NATO-Russia war. It only needs one escalation, one retaliation and one badly misunderstood red line. World wars rarely begin because everyone decides they want one. They begin because everyone thinks the next escalation will still be manageable. Brandon Weichert

🇷🇺🇪🇺 Europe may be preparing for the wrong Russian war Ukraine just launched one of its largest attacks on Russia, with Moscow saying more than 1,600 drones were intercepted, including hundreds headed toward the capital. At the same time, European intelligence warnings are getting darker. Officials cited by The Guardian say Russia could test NATO within months through sabotage, drones, missiles or even a limited incursion, while France reportedly says it is already conducting undisclosed conventional responses to Russian hybrid attacks. Brandon thinks Europe is misreading the danger. He does not believe Moscow is preparing a conventional invasion of NATO. Instead, he expects Russia to keep grinding through Ukraine while potentially targeting the infrastructure and supply networks supporting Kyiv. But there’s a much more dangerous possibility. Europe could prepare so aggressively for a Russian attack that the preparations themselves help create the confrontation everyone claims to be trying to prevent. European governments increasingly see rearmament not merely as defense policy, but as a way of rebuilding the continent around a new military economy. Meanwhile, the battlefield itself keeps moving. That leaves Europe in an increasingly ugly position. Russia doesn't need to invade NATO for this to become a NATO-Russia war. It only needs one escalation, one retaliation and one badly misunderstood red line. World wars rarely begin because everyone decides they want one. They begin because everyone thinks the next escalation will still be manageable. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

318,002 次观看 • 5 天前

This video from a Russian immigrant to the United States, who has family and friends in both Ukraine and Russia, exposes the harsh truth: The “I stand with Ukraine” crowd in America has no clue what they’re actually standing for. If you have 🇺🇦 in your bio, are you truly informed, or just virtue signaling, following a trend, and falling for propaganda hook, line, and sinker? While you parade your support online, Ukrainian men and boys are being sent to their deaths in staggering numbers. Meanwhile, Zelensky, a literal actor and a dictator, has canceled elections and extended his rule beyond May 2024. Let’s be real: If President Trump had refused to leave office like Zelensky has, the same people who have spent four years crying about January 6 would be losing their minds. But because it’s Ukraine, you turn a blind eye. You claim to “stand” with Ukraine, yet you sit comfortably behind a screen cheering on a war they cannot win. If you truly believe in this cause, stop hiding behind hashtags and fly over there. Stand on the front lines. Put your life where your mouth is. Otherwise, admit that your support was never more than a hollow, media-driven trend.

This video from a Russian immigrant to the United States, who has family and friends in both Ukraine and Russia, exposes the harsh truth: The “I stand with Ukraine” crowd in America has no clue what they’re actually standing for. If you have 🇺🇦 in your bio, are you truly informed, or just virtue signaling, following a trend, and falling for propaganda hook, line, and sinker? While you parade your support online, Ukrainian men and boys are being sent to their deaths in staggering numbers. Meanwhile, Zelensky, a literal actor and a dictator, has canceled elections and extended his rule beyond May 2024. Let’s be real: If President Trump had refused to leave office like Zelensky has, the same people who have spent four years crying about January 6 would be losing their minds. But because it’s Ukraine, you turn a blind eye. You claim to “stand” with Ukraine, yet you sit comfortably behind a screen cheering on a war they cannot win. If you truly believe in this cause, stop hiding behind hashtags and fly over there. Stand on the front lines. Put your life where your mouth is. Otherwise, admit that your support was never more than a hollow, media-driven trend.

DEL

200,162 次观看 • 1 年前

She Never Sounds Like She’s Begging. That’s What Makes It Hurt. There is something almost strange about watching Sade sing “No Ordinary Love” live. The song is about wanting someone who has not given you the same kind of love in return. On paper, it could easily become dramatic. A bigger voice, more emotion, more pleading. But Sade goes in the opposite direction. She barely seems to chase the song at all. Her voice stays low, calm, and remarkably controlled. Even when the lyrics become more vulnerable, she doesn’t push them toward us. She lets them sit there. It feels less like someone asking to be loved and more like someone finally admitting how much they have already given. That changes the entire mood. Listen to the way she delivers the title, “No Ordinary Love.” There is no great vocal explosion behind it. The words almost sound like a private conclusion she has reached for herself. And that may be the most interesting thing about Sade as a performer. She understands that sadness does not always sound sad. Sometimes sadness sounds tired. Sometimes it sounds like someone who has repeated the same story so many times that there is no energy left to explain it. That restraint gives the performance a strange intimacy. You feel as if you are overhearing something rather than being performed to. The band helps create that feeling. Everything moves slowly, but nothing feels empty. The groove keeps pulling forward while the voice seems suspended above it. The result is almost hypnotic — beautiful on the surface, quietly painful underneath. And then there is the title itself. “No Ordinary Love” sounds romantic at first. But the longer you sit with the song, the phrase starts to feel less like a celebration and more like a defense. Maybe she is saying: What I gave you was not ordinary. And perhaps there is another thought hiding underneath: So why wasn't it enough? That is where the song becomes much more human than a simple love song. Most heartbreak songs want you to see the wound. Sade does something more difficult. She keeps the wound covered. You hear it anyway. Decades later, that may be why this performance still feels so modern. Nothing is exaggerated. Nothing is forced. She simply stands inside the song and lets the silence between the words do some of the work.

She Never Sounds Like She’s Begging. That’s What Makes It Hurt. There is something almost strange about watching Sade sing “No Ordinary Love” live. The song is about wanting someone who has not given you the same kind of love in return. On paper, it could easily become dramatic. A bigger voice, more emotion, more pleading. But Sade goes in the opposite direction. She barely seems to chase the song at all. Her voice stays low, calm, and remarkably controlled. Even when the lyrics become more vulnerable, she doesn’t push them toward us. She lets them sit there. It feels less like someone asking to be loved and more like someone finally admitting how much they have already given. That changes the entire mood. Listen to the way she delivers the title, “No Ordinary Love.” There is no great vocal explosion behind it. The words almost sound like a private conclusion she has reached for herself. And that may be the most interesting thing about Sade as a performer. She understands that sadness does not always sound sad. Sometimes sadness sounds tired. Sometimes it sounds like someone who has repeated the same story so many times that there is no energy left to explain it. That restraint gives the performance a strange intimacy. You feel as if you are overhearing something rather than being performed to. The band helps create that feeling. Everything moves slowly, but nothing feels empty. The groove keeps pulling forward while the voice seems suspended above it. The result is almost hypnotic — beautiful on the surface, quietly painful underneath. And then there is the title itself. “No Ordinary Love” sounds romantic at first. But the longer you sit with the song, the phrase starts to feel less like a celebration and more like a defense. Maybe she is saying: What I gave you was not ordinary. And perhaps there is another thought hiding underneath: So why wasn't it enough? That is where the song becomes much more human than a simple love song. Most heartbreak songs want you to see the wound. Sade does something more difficult. She keeps the wound covered. You hear it anyway. Decades later, that may be why this performance still feels so modern. Nothing is exaggerated. Nothing is forced. She simply stands inside the song and lets the silence between the words do some of the work.

Emotion & Music

16,628 次观看 • 21 天前

Oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz is still running at about a third of pre-war levels. The market is somehow pricing in a surplus. Jeffrey Snider thinks he knows why. I sat down with the macro analyst and eurodollar expert to make sense of what's happening with oil, the global economy, and what comes next. His theory on the price collapse: demand destruction from the energy shock may be deeper than anyone expected. Manufacturers front-loaded months of activity when the war started, building inventory fast before shortages hit. Now that rush is over, and they've hit an air pocket. On China: "Terrible." Banking crisis, real estate bust, consumer spending collapsing. Chinese government bond yields almost back to record lows. He thinks China quietly agreed with Trump after their May summit to hold off on refilling strategic reserves, helping suppress the oil price. Nobody knows what China got in return. His bigger warning has nothing to do with oil. The stock market says the economy is booming. The median age of a first-time homebuyer in America is now 40. He says that gap is exactly what's driving the global wave of socialism, and the political breaking point is getting closer faster than people think. We've been in the downswing of a long economic cycle since August 2007. He thinks the 2030s could mark the turn. The question is whether the politics break first. Great conversation with Jeffrey P. Snider

Oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz is still running at about a third of pre-war levels. The market is somehow pricing in a surplus. Jeffrey Snider thinks he knows why. I sat down with the macro analyst and eurodollar expert to make sense of what's happening with oil, the global economy, and what comes next. His theory on the price collapse: demand destruction from the energy shock may be deeper than anyone expected. Manufacturers front-loaded months of activity when the war started, building inventory fast before shortages hit. Now that rush is over, and they've hit an air pocket. On China: "Terrible." Banking crisis, real estate bust, consumer spending collapsing. Chinese government bond yields almost back to record lows. He thinks China quietly agreed with Trump after their May summit to hold off on refilling strategic reserves, helping suppress the oil price. Nobody knows what China got in return. His bigger warning has nothing to do with oil. The stock market says the economy is booming. The median age of a first-time homebuyer in America is now 40. He says that gap is exactly what's driving the global wave of socialism, and the political breaking point is getting closer faster than people think. We've been in the downswing of a long economic cycle since August 2007. He thinks the 2030s could mark the turn. The question is whether the politics break first. Great conversation with Jeffrey P. Snider

Mario Nawfal

306,650 次观看 • 2 个月前