Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

BIG | 🇺🇸🇮🇷‼️‼️ U.S. intelligence believes Tehran is settling in for a prolonged confrontation, increasingly confident that it can keep striking across the Middle East while using time, economic disruption and American political pressure as weapons against Washington. According to The New York Times, the conflict has given Iran...

visionergeo's profile picture

Visioner

227,061 subscribers

26,833 views • 20 days ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🇺🇸🇮🇷⚡️ Donald Trump is changing course on Iran, ordering his senior representatives to halt negotiations with Tehran as Washington prepares to replace stop-and-start diplomacy with a longer campaign of sustained economic and military pressure. According to CNN, the administration is simultaneously moving away from the idea of immediately launching another massive wave of strikes. Instead, Trump wants to gradually “strangle” Iran through economic isolation and sustained military pressure, steadily increasing the cost for Tehran while denying it the relief it seeks. The objective is to weaken Iran’s position over time until its leadership becomes more willing to accept Washington’s conditions. CNN had previously reported that the administration was preparing a broader “economic isolation” strategy against Iran. This represents a shift in method rather than a reduction in pressure. Washington appears to be betting that Iran can be forced into concessions without immediately committing the U.S. to another expensive round of large-scale warfare. The strategy gives Trump room to preserve military escalation as a later option while sanctions, the blockade and economic pressure steadily erode Tehran’s ability to sustain the confrontation. The crucial question is whether Iran bends first, or decides that renewed escalation is preferable to being slowly squeezed. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:21

🇺🇸🇮🇷⚡️ Donald Trump is changing course on Iran, ordering his senior representatives to halt negotiations with Tehran as Washington prepares to replace stop-and-start diplomacy with a longer campaign of sustained economic and military pressure. According to CNN, the administration is simultaneously moving away from the idea of immediately launching another massive wave of strikes. Instead, Trump wants to gradually “strangle” Iran through economic isolation and sustained military pressure, steadily increasing the cost for Tehran while denying it the relief it seeks. The objective is to weaken Iran’s position over time until its leadership becomes more willing to accept Washington’s conditions. CNN had previously reported that the administration was preparing a broader “economic isolation” strategy against Iran. This represents a shift in method rather than a reduction in pressure. Washington appears to be betting that Iran can be forced into concessions without immediately committing the U.S. to another expensive round of large-scale warfare. The strategy gives Trump room to preserve military escalation as a later option while sanctions, the blockade and economic pressure steadily erode Tehran’s ability to sustain the confrontation. The crucial question is whether Iran bends first, or decides that renewed escalation is preferable to being slowly squeezed. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

13,610 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸❌🇮🇷 Trump is preparing to tighten the economic noose around an already battered Iran, betting that unprecedented financial pressure can force Tehran into a deal without immediately returning to large-scale military strikes. According to Bloomberg, the Trump administration is preparing “unprecedented economic measures” against Iran, with the goal of forcing Tehran toward an agreement before the November midterm elections. The move suggests that, for now, Trump prefers economic pressure and diplomacy over renewed strikes, despite calls from parts of the U.S. military leadership for a tougher military approach. Washington’s strategy now appears to be straightforward: use Iran’s weakened post-war economy as the battlefield and sanctions as the weapon. Tehran may have survived the military campaign, but if the U.S. can further restrict its oil revenues, financial access and ability to rebuild, Trump could try to achieve through economic strangulation what another costly round of warfare might not guarantee. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:26

🇺🇸❌🇮🇷 Trump is preparing to tighten the economic noose around an already battered Iran, betting that unprecedented financial pressure can force Tehran into a deal without immediately returning to large-scale military strikes. According to Bloomberg, the Trump administration is preparing “unprecedented economic measures” against Iran, with the goal of forcing Tehran toward an agreement before the November midterm elections. The move suggests that, for now, Trump prefers economic pressure and diplomacy over renewed strikes, despite calls from parts of the U.S. military leadership for a tougher military approach. Washington’s strategy now appears to be straightforward: use Iran’s weakened post-war economy as the battlefield and sanctions as the weapon. Tehran may have survived the military campaign, but if the U.S. can further restrict its oil revenues, financial access and ability to rebuild, Trump could try to achieve through economic strangulation what another costly round of warfare might not guarantee. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

18,048 views • 1 month ago

My interview with Jim Sciutto CNN International: A. The fundamental question is: What is the administration’s endgame with Iran? Right now, that remains unclear. Is the objective to weaken Iran, bring down the regime, force Tehran to capitulate, or ultimately return to negotiations and reach an agreement? These are very different objectives that require very different strategies. Until Washington defines what success actually looks like, it is difficult to understand where this conflict is heading or how it is supposed to end. B. Economic pressure is a tool, not an objective, and certainly not an exit strategy. Without a realistic diplomatic off-ramp, maximum economic pressure is more likely to produce escalation than capitulation. The assumption that Washington can continue squeezing Tehran while indefinitely preserving the current status quo is simply unrealistic. Iran has agency in this conflict. Tehran will look for ways to impose costs on the United States and its regional partners. So even if the administration wants to freeze the conflict at its current level, Iran has no reason to accommodate that preference. Washington does not control the escalation ladder by itself. C. Meanwhile, much of the discussion in Washington is focused on the Strait of Hormu which, we should remember, was open before the war, while the strategic problems that helped produce this conflict remain unresolved. The most important is Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, the nuclear challenge may now be more dangerous than it was before the war. Ali Khamenei was deeply hostile to the United States and Israel, but he was also extremely cautious about crossing the nuclear threshold. His removal has changed the decision-making environment in Tehran. With the IRGC now wielding greater influence, the possibility that Iran could decide to move toward a nuclear weapon has become more serious. cannot build a strategy around the assumption that the Iranian regime will collapse. That is not a strategy; it is wishful thinking. Economic pressure, even severe economic pressure, does not guarantee regime change. In fact, it could produce the opposite effect: triggering a nationalist backlash, strengthening the regime’s narrative that Iran is under external attack, and giving the leadership additional justification to crack down internally. Regime change may happen, but Washington cannot make it the central assumption on which its Iran strategy rests. U.S. policy has to be built around the Iran that exists today, not the Iran Washington hopes might emerge tomorrow. E. For the nuclear thtrat - That creates an enormous problem for Israel. It is difficult to imagine any Israeli government simply accepting an Iranian nuclear program moving toward weaponization. So ending the current fighting without addressing the nuclear issue would not resolve the underlying conflict. It could leave Washington and Jerusalem facing an even more dangerous crisis down the road. #IranWar‌ #iran #thebrief
5:35

My interview with Jim Sciutto CNN International: A. The fundamental question is: What is the administration’s endgame with Iran? Right now, that remains unclear. Is the objective to weaken Iran, bring down the regime, force Tehran to capitulate, or ultimately return to negotiations and reach an agreement? These are very different objectives that require very different strategies. Until Washington defines what success actually looks like, it is difficult to understand where this conflict is heading or how it is supposed to end. B. Economic pressure is a tool, not an objective, and certainly not an exit strategy. Without a realistic diplomatic off-ramp, maximum economic pressure is more likely to produce escalation than capitulation. The assumption that Washington can continue squeezing Tehran while indefinitely preserving the current status quo is simply unrealistic. Iran has agency in this conflict. Tehran will look for ways to impose costs on the United States and its regional partners. So even if the administration wants to freeze the conflict at its current level, Iran has no reason to accommodate that preference. Washington does not control the escalation ladder by itself. C. Meanwhile, much of the discussion in Washington is focused on the Strait of Hormu which, we should remember, was open before the war, while the strategic problems that helped produce this conflict remain unresolved. The most important is Iran’s nuclear program. In fact, the nuclear challenge may now be more dangerous than it was before the war. Ali Khamenei was deeply hostile to the United States and Israel, but he was also extremely cautious about crossing the nuclear threshold. His removal has changed the decision-making environment in Tehran. With the IRGC now wielding greater influence, the possibility that Iran could decide to move toward a nuclear weapon has become more serious. cannot build a strategy around the assumption that the Iranian regime will collapse. That is not a strategy; it is wishful thinking. Economic pressure, even severe economic pressure, does not guarantee regime change. In fact, it could produce the opposite effect: triggering a nationalist backlash, strengthening the regime’s narrative that Iran is under external attack, and giving the leadership additional justification to crack down internally. Regime change may happen, but Washington cannot make it the central assumption on which its Iran strategy rests. U.S. policy has to be built around the Iran that exists today, not the Iran Washington hopes might emerge tomorrow. E. For the nuclear thtrat - That creates an enormous problem for Israel. It is difficult to imagine any Israeli government simply accepting an Iranian nuclear program moving toward weaponization. So ending the current fighting without addressing the nuclear issue would not resolve the underlying conflict. It could leave Washington and Jerusalem facing an even more dangerous crisis down the road. #IranWar‌ #iran #thebrief

Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش

15,414 views • 21 days ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷⚠️ Trump hoped reopening the Strait of Hormuz would give him an opportunity to declare victory and wind down the war with Iran, even without securing a nuclear agreement. Tehran, however, has dramatically raised the price of a deal. According to The Wall Street Journal, Iran is demanding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, an end to the naval blockade, the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets, and billions of dollars in war reparations before fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Those demands have significantly narrowed the Trump administration’s room for maneuver. Tehran reportedly believes Washington is increasingly eager to find an exit from the conflict and is therefore using its ability to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, and consequently a crucial portion of global oil flows, as leverage at the negotiating table. The pressure is also growing inside the United States. Gasoline prices are hovering around $4 per gallon, while the approaching midterm elections give the Trump administration a strong political incentive to stabilize energy markets and reach an agreement with Iran. The situation leaves Washington facing an increasingly difficult calculation. Accepting Tehran’s sweeping demands would represent a major concession, while renewed military escalation risks further disruption of Hormuz and another surge in global energy prices. Iran appears to understand that pressure on the Strait directly translates into economic and political pressure on Washington, and Tehran is attempting to exploit that leverage to extract concessions it could never obtain under normal circumstances.
0:26

🇺🇸🇮🇷⚠️ Trump hoped reopening the Strait of Hormuz would give him an opportunity to declare victory and wind down the war with Iran, even without securing a nuclear agreement. Tehran, however, has dramatically raised the price of a deal. According to The Wall Street Journal, Iran is demanding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region, an end to the naval blockade, the lifting of sanctions, the release of frozen Iranian assets, and billions of dollars in war reparations before fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Those demands have significantly narrowed the Trump administration’s room for maneuver. Tehran reportedly believes Washington is increasingly eager to find an exit from the conflict and is therefore using its ability to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, and consequently a crucial portion of global oil flows, as leverage at the negotiating table. The pressure is also growing inside the United States. Gasoline prices are hovering around $4 per gallon, while the approaching midterm elections give the Trump administration a strong political incentive to stabilize energy markets and reach an agreement with Iran. The situation leaves Washington facing an increasingly difficult calculation. Accepting Tehran’s sweeping demands would represent a major concession, while renewed military escalation risks further disruption of Hormuz and another surge in global energy prices. Iran appears to understand that pressure on the Strait directly translates into economic and political pressure on Washington, and Tehran is attempting to exploit that leverage to extract concessions it could never obtain under normal circumstances.

NSTRIKE

19,620 views • 1 month ago

🇮🇷 🇺🇸 Iran is signaling that any U.S. economic blockade would trigger a military response rather than force Tehran to back down. Middle East analyst Joshua Landis says recent Iranian strikes were designed to warn Washington that pressure on the Strait of Hormuz would not remain an economic contest. Instead, he argues, Tehran would expand the battlefield by targeting U.S. assets and regional infrastructure, turning sanctions into a wider kinetic conflict. His assessment is that Tehran is trying to convince Washington that economic warfare cannot remain separate from military escalation. Joshua Landis
3:37

🇮🇷 🇺🇸 Iran is signaling that any U.S. economic blockade would trigger a military response rather than force Tehran to back down. Middle East analyst Joshua Landis says recent Iranian strikes were designed to warn Washington that pressure on the Strait of Hormuz would not remain an economic contest. Instead, he argues, Tehran would expand the battlefield by targeting U.S. assets and regional infrastructure, turning sanctions into a wider kinetic conflict. His assessment is that Tehran is trying to convince Washington that economic warfare cannot remain separate from military escalation. Joshua Landis

Mario Nawfal

86,521 views • 1 month ago

Victor Davis Hanson: Iran May Be Preparing One Final Gamble Iran is facing mounting economic pressure after roughly 160 days of war, even as repeated negotiations with the Trump administration have failed to produce a lasting agreement. Sanctions, financial restrictions, and the blockade are costing Iran hundreds of millions of dollars a day while its military, missile, and nuclear capabilities have been severely weakened. With the midterm elections approaching, Iran may see political pressure inside the United States as one of its remaining sources of leverage. Higher gas prices, disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, and continued global uncertainty have made the conflict increasingly unpopular, creating an incentive for Tehran to prolong negotiations while looking for an opportunity to dramatically escalate the conflict. The possibility of an Iranian “October surprise”—including attacks against Israel, Gulf states, shipping, or U.S. forces—raises the question of whether the Trump administration should act preemptively against Iran's remaining military capabilities while maintaining the economic pressure and negotiations that are pushing the regime closer to a breaking point. Victor Davis Hanson
8:30

Victor Davis Hanson: Iran May Be Preparing One Final Gamble Iran is facing mounting economic pressure after roughly 160 days of war, even as repeated negotiations with the Trump administration have failed to produce a lasting agreement. Sanctions, financial restrictions, and the blockade are costing Iran hundreds of millions of dollars a day while its military, missile, and nuclear capabilities have been severely weakened. With the midterm elections approaching, Iran may see political pressure inside the United States as one of its remaining sources of leverage. Higher gas prices, disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, and continued global uncertainty have made the conflict increasingly unpopular, creating an incentive for Tehran to prolong negotiations while looking for an opportunity to dramatically escalate the conflict. The possibility of an Iranian “October surprise”—including attacks against Israel, Gulf states, shipping, or U.S. forces—raises the question of whether the Trump administration should act preemptively against Iran's remaining military capabilities while maintaining the economic pressure and negotiations that are pushing the regime closer to a breaking point. Victor Davis Hanson

Daily Signal

28,998 views • 1 month ago

🇮🇷 IS IRAN USING THE PAUSE TO REBUILD AND BETTING ON TRUMP BLINKING Speaking on i24NEWS, Dr. Eric Mandel of Dr. Eric Mandel / MEPIN™ warned that Iran sees the current pause not as peace, but as an opportunity to rebuild, reposition, and prepare for the next round. Tehran believes it can outlast President Trump, exploit U.S. political pressure ahead of the midterms, and benefit from public concerns over depleted American interceptor stocks. Mandel said Iran is still perceived as the winner because the talks do not seriously address its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, or proxy network. America still has leverage—but only if it is willing to use it: reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force, maintain economic pressure, support the Iranian opposition, and prevent Tehran from rebuilding. The real question is whether Washington has a strategy—or is simply moving from escalation to pause while Iran buys time. i24NEWS English
5:33

🇮🇷 IS IRAN USING THE PAUSE TO REBUILD AND BETTING ON TRUMP BLINKING Speaking on i24NEWS, Dr. Eric Mandel of Dr. Eric Mandel / MEPIN™ warned that Iran sees the current pause not as peace, but as an opportunity to rebuild, reposition, and prepare for the next round. Tehran believes it can outlast President Trump, exploit U.S. political pressure ahead of the midterms, and benefit from public concerns over depleted American interceptor stocks. Mandel said Iran is still perceived as the winner because the talks do not seriously address its nuclear program, ballistic missiles, or proxy network. America still has leverage—but only if it is willing to use it: reopen the Strait of Hormuz by force, maintain economic pressure, support the Iranian opposition, and prevent Tehran from rebuilding. The real question is whether Washington has a strategy—or is simply moving from escalation to pause while Iran buys time. i24NEWS English

Mossad Commentary

24,998 views • 1 month ago

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Prof. Mohammad Marandi: If Trump’s sanctions actually work, war may become inevitable Iran's economy is unquestionably worse than before the war, he says. Infrastructure is damaged, sanctions hurt, and Tehran is shifting toward a wartime economy. But Iran isn't thinking about surrender. It's preparing for another war. Marandi argues Tehran has spent decades preparing for exactly this confrontation, building underground facilities while developing missiles and drones. And he believes Iran is now rapidly expanding those capabilities during the current lull. That creates a nasty paradox for Trump's “Economic D-Day.” If the sanctions fail, Iran can simply absorb the pressure and wait. If they succeed in seriously damaging Iran's economy, Marandi believes Tehran will retaliate, potentially targeting American economic and military interests across the Gulf. And Iran still has another lever: Hormuz. Marandi argues Tehran could gradually tighten the flow of oil and other critical commodities, increasing pressure on global markets without immediately returning to full-scale war. So Washington's problem is becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Sanctions that don't work accomplish very little. Sanctions that do work may restart the war. And Marandi's conclusion is remarkably simple: if Washington is serious about using economic pressure to overthrow the Iranian government, renewed conflict is “inevitable.” Seyed Mohammad Marandi
52:13

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Prof. Mohammad Marandi: If Trump’s sanctions actually work, war may become inevitable Iran's economy is unquestionably worse than before the war, he says. Infrastructure is damaged, sanctions hurt, and Tehran is shifting toward a wartime economy. But Iran isn't thinking about surrender. It's preparing for another war. Marandi argues Tehran has spent decades preparing for exactly this confrontation, building underground facilities while developing missiles and drones. And he believes Iran is now rapidly expanding those capabilities during the current lull. That creates a nasty paradox for Trump's “Economic D-Day.” If the sanctions fail, Iran can simply absorb the pressure and wait. If they succeed in seriously damaging Iran's economy, Marandi believes Tehran will retaliate, potentially targeting American economic and military interests across the Gulf. And Iran still has another lever: Hormuz. Marandi argues Tehran could gradually tighten the flow of oil and other critical commodities, increasing pressure on global markets without immediately returning to full-scale war. So Washington's problem is becoming increasingly uncomfortable. Sanctions that don't work accomplish very little. Sanctions that do work may restart the war. And Marandi's conclusion is remarkably simple: if Washington is serious about using economic pressure to overthrow the Iranian government, renewed conflict is “inevitable.” Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Mario Nawfal

317,433 views • 26 days ago

🇮🇷 Iran Refuses to Surrender Uranium Stockpile: US-Iran negotiations are continuing, with the central demand that Tehran surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium. Iran is strongly resisting, viewing the handover as a humiliating capitulation to the United States and Israel that would undermine its security, damage its regional prestige, and threaten the regime’s survival. The stockpile also represents critical leverage against potential future attacks. As a result, Tehran is unlikely to give it up voluntarily. Only severe economic collapse is likely to force its hand. For now, the Trump administration is favoring sustained economic pressure over military escalation- blocking Iranian oil shipments and engaging in a prolonged war of endurance.
0:58

🇮🇷 Iran Refuses to Surrender Uranium Stockpile: US-Iran negotiations are continuing, with the central demand that Tehran surrender its stockpile of enriched uranium. Iran is strongly resisting, viewing the handover as a humiliating capitulation to the United States and Israel that would undermine its security, damage its regional prestige, and threaten the regime’s survival. The stockpile also represents critical leverage against potential future attacks. As a result, Tehran is unlikely to give it up voluntarily. Only severe economic collapse is likely to force its hand. For now, the Trump administration is favoring sustained economic pressure over military escalation- blocking Iranian oil shipments and engaging in a prolonged war of endurance.

Global Strategy

38,084 views • 3 months ago

🚨 THE U.S.-IRAN MEMORANDUM MAY BE A PAUSE — NOT PEACE 🚨 The memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran is unlikely to end the conflict permanently. Because the war against Iran was never only about nuclear policy or regional security. It was about reshaping Iran itself: weakening it, fragmenting it, gaining leverage over its energy resources, and ultimately controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Had that project succeeded, Israel would have emerged with enormous military, political, and economic leverage across West Asia. Every country hesitant to join the Abraham Accords would have faced growing pressure to enter an Israeli-led regional order. That is why I see this as a high-stakes, zero-sum struggle for the Israeli Zionist establishment. A memorandum can pause open warfare, but it cannot erase Israeli strategic ambitions, intelligence operations, psychological warfare, and regional competition that produced the conflict in the first place. I do not believe Iran is naive about this either. The war has shown that Tehran plans for worst-case scenarios, and I expect Iranian officials to assume that another phase of confrontation remains possible, potentially after the U.S. midterm elections, depending on political developments in Washington. For now, the conflict may be on the shelf, but it is not over.
5:04

🚨 THE U.S.-IRAN MEMORANDUM MAY BE A PAUSE — NOT PEACE 🚨 The memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran is unlikely to end the conflict permanently. Because the war against Iran was never only about nuclear policy or regional security. It was about reshaping Iran itself: weakening it, fragmenting it, gaining leverage over its energy resources, and ultimately controlling the Strait of Hormuz. Had that project succeeded, Israel would have emerged with enormous military, political, and economic leverage across West Asia. Every country hesitant to join the Abraham Accords would have faced growing pressure to enter an Israeli-led regional order. That is why I see this as a high-stakes, zero-sum struggle for the Israeli Zionist establishment. A memorandum can pause open warfare, but it cannot erase Israeli strategic ambitions, intelligence operations, psychological warfare, and regional competition that produced the conflict in the first place. I do not believe Iran is naive about this either. The war has shown that Tehran plans for worst-case scenarios, and I expect Iranian officials to assume that another phase of confrontation remains possible, potentially after the U.S. midterm elections, depending on political developments in Washington. For now, the conflict may be on the shelf, but it is not over.

Kevork Almassian

16,152 views • 3 months ago

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran doesn't believe the war is over. According to Prof. Foad Izadi, the Iranian military is using the current lull to prepare for renewed confrontation with the United States, potentially for the remainder of Trump's presidency. Politically, Tehran is still entertaining diplomacy. Militarily, it's preparing for the next round. Izadi argues that Trump's economic pressure won't change that calculation. Iran's economy was already struggling before the war and is worse now. Power plants and infrastructure have been damaged, electricity shortages hurt industrial production, and sanctions are adding further pressure. But he argues that economic pain is not translating into political capitulation. Instead, the war has strengthened Iranian nationalism and hardened public attitudes against Washington and Israel. That doesn't mean Tehran wants another war. Izadi believes Iran is unlikely to strike first as long as the government can keep the economy functioning. But there is another potential trigger: Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah have effectively established Beirut as the red line. Hezbollah continues fighting Israel while Iran stays out directly, but Izadi says an Israeli strike on Beirut would bring Iran into the conflict. So Tehran's strategy appears to be patience. Keep the economy alive. Avoid firing first. Prepare for another American attack. And wait for the political clock in Washington and Israel to move. The problem is that everyone is waiting while preparing for war. And eventually, someone may decide they're tired of waiting. فواد ایزدی Foad Izadi
29:43

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran doesn't believe the war is over. According to Prof. Foad Izadi, the Iranian military is using the current lull to prepare for renewed confrontation with the United States, potentially for the remainder of Trump's presidency. Politically, Tehran is still entertaining diplomacy. Militarily, it's preparing for the next round. Izadi argues that Trump's economic pressure won't change that calculation. Iran's economy was already struggling before the war and is worse now. Power plants and infrastructure have been damaged, electricity shortages hurt industrial production, and sanctions are adding further pressure. But he argues that economic pain is not translating into political capitulation. Instead, the war has strengthened Iranian nationalism and hardened public attitudes against Washington and Israel. That doesn't mean Tehran wants another war. Izadi believes Iran is unlikely to strike first as long as the government can keep the economy functioning. But there is another potential trigger: Lebanon. Iran and Hezbollah have effectively established Beirut as the red line. Hezbollah continues fighting Israel while Iran stays out directly, but Izadi says an Israeli strike on Beirut would bring Iran into the conflict. So Tehran's strategy appears to be patience. Keep the economy alive. Avoid firing first. Prepare for another American attack. And wait for the political clock in Washington and Israel to move. The problem is that everyone is waiting while preparing for war. And eventually, someone may decide they're tired of waiting. فواد ایزدی Foad Izadi

Mario Nawfal

288,331 views • 27 days ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The U.S. and Iran may still have one last chance to avoid another war. Middle East expert Rob Geist Pinfold argues that despite the recent escalation, neither Washington nor Tehran appears eager to return to full-scale conflict. He points to one detail above all. Iran has deliberately avoided striking Israel directly, while the U.S. has so far kept Israel from reentering the fight. According to Rob, that's not a coincidence. Both sides understand that once Israel is back in the war, it becomes much harder to control the pace of escalation or return to diplomacy. He also believes there's a growing divergence between the Trump administration and Netanyahu's government. While Israel has historically been more willing to sustain a prolonged conflict, Rob argues Washington has become increasingly cautious after discovering the last campaign was neither quick nor decisive. His broader point is that both sides are still applying pressure. But they're doing it in ways designed to avoid crossing the one line that could make another regional war almost impossible to stop. Even so, Rob warns that the margin for error is shrinking. One Iranian strike on Israel, or one major strategic miscalculation by either side, could send the entire region straight back up the escalation ladder. Rob Geist Pinfold
54:09

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The U.S. and Iran may still have one last chance to avoid another war. Middle East expert Rob Geist Pinfold argues that despite the recent escalation, neither Washington nor Tehran appears eager to return to full-scale conflict. He points to one detail above all. Iran has deliberately avoided striking Israel directly, while the U.S. has so far kept Israel from reentering the fight. According to Rob, that's not a coincidence. Both sides understand that once Israel is back in the war, it becomes much harder to control the pace of escalation or return to diplomacy. He also believes there's a growing divergence between the Trump administration and Netanyahu's government. While Israel has historically been more willing to sustain a prolonged conflict, Rob argues Washington has become increasingly cautious after discovering the last campaign was neither quick nor decisive. His broader point is that both sides are still applying pressure. But they're doing it in ways designed to avoid crossing the one line that could make another regional war almost impossible to stop. Even so, Rob warns that the margin for error is shrinking. One Iranian strike on Israel, or one major strategic miscalculation by either side, could send the entire region straight back up the escalation ladder. Rob Geist Pinfold

Mario Nawfal

285,054 views • 1 month ago

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran is turning the war into a global energy conflict, and each day that passes increasingly favors Tehran Most people still think this war will be decided by airstrikes, missiles, or whichever side destroys more military targets. Geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert thinks that's yesterday's way of looking at it; the real battlefield is energy. Every additional day that the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted creates costs that spread far beyond the Middle East. Higher energy prices, more expensive shipping, pressure on agriculture, manufacturing, and global supply chains. Even if the shooting stopped tomorrow, those economic effects wouldn't disappear overnight. And that's exactly why Brandon believes time increasingly favours Tehran. Iran doesn't need to defeat the U.S military; it simply needs to keep imposing economic costs that Washington, its allies and the global economy become less willing to absorb. That's the strategic shift he believes many people still haven't recognised. The U.S isn't fighting a conventional war of conquest; it's trying to restore normal trade, shipping and energy flows. Iran's objective is much simpler: Prevent that from happening. The longer disruption continues, the more pressure builds on Washington to either negotiate or dramatically escalate. Trump would probably prefer a negotiated settlement if it preserved U.S interests. Iran also wants a deal, but on terms that recognise the leverage it has created. The obstacle, in Brandon's view, is that Israel's strategic objectives are much broader than Washington's. As long as those objectives remain misaligned, every diplomatic opening becomes harder to turn into an actual agreement. That's why he thinks this conflict is becoming more dangerous, not less. Brandon Weichert
36:21

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran is turning the war into a global energy conflict, and each day that passes increasingly favors Tehran Most people still think this war will be decided by airstrikes, missiles, or whichever side destroys more military targets. Geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert thinks that's yesterday's way of looking at it; the real battlefield is energy. Every additional day that the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted creates costs that spread far beyond the Middle East. Higher energy prices, more expensive shipping, pressure on agriculture, manufacturing, and global supply chains. Even if the shooting stopped tomorrow, those economic effects wouldn't disappear overnight. And that's exactly why Brandon believes time increasingly favours Tehran. Iran doesn't need to defeat the U.S military; it simply needs to keep imposing economic costs that Washington, its allies and the global economy become less willing to absorb. That's the strategic shift he believes many people still haven't recognised. The U.S isn't fighting a conventional war of conquest; it's trying to restore normal trade, shipping and energy flows. Iran's objective is much simpler: Prevent that from happening. The longer disruption continues, the more pressure builds on Washington to either negotiate or dramatically escalate. Trump would probably prefer a negotiated settlement if it preserved U.S interests. Iran also wants a deal, but on terms that recognise the leverage it has created. The obstacle, in Brandon's view, is that Israel's strategic objectives are much broader than Washington's. As long as those objectives remain misaligned, every diplomatic opening becomes harder to turn into an actual agreement. That's why he thinks this conflict is becoming more dangerous, not less. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

273,838 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump may have reached the point where every option makes America's position worse. Middle East expert Joshua Landis says Iran isn't just retaliating to U.S. pressure anymore. It's deliberately expanding the battlefield to convince Washington that escalation carries a higher cost than compromise. Start with the recent strikes. An American response inside Iran is followed by Iranian attacks on U.S. assets in Jordan and on ships in Egypt. If Washington turns to economic warfare or tries to blockade Iran, Tehran will simply drag the conflict back into military escalation. Landis agrees. He argues the White House still believes it can force Iran to back down by gradually degrading its economy, missile capabilities and military infrastructure. But every new round of pressure pushes Iran to widen the conflict instead, creating economic pain for America's regional partners and demonstrating that no country is insulated from the consequences. Egypt is the perfect example. Even if American ships are the intended target, attacks near Egypt threaten tourism, Suez Canal traffic and one of the region's most fragile economies. The point isn't necessarily Egypt itself. It's proving that pressure on Iran can quickly become pressure on everyone else. That brings Landis to the real issue: the Strait of Hormuz. He argues this war is ultimately about who controls one of the world's most important energy chokepoints. For decades, American dominance in the Gulf has underpinned its global influence. But Landis says preserving that dominance through military force is becoming increasingly difficult. His argument is that even if Washington steps back, Iran cannot simply shut off global oil forever. Tehran also depends on exporting its own energy, meaning every Gulf state ultimately has an incentive to reach some form of accommodation. The real question isn't whether oil will keep flowing, but whether the United States remains the power that guarantees it. Landis warns that continuing to escalate may actually accelerate the decline Washington is trying to prevent. Joshua Landis
20:55

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump may have reached the point where every option makes America's position worse. Middle East expert Joshua Landis says Iran isn't just retaliating to U.S. pressure anymore. It's deliberately expanding the battlefield to convince Washington that escalation carries a higher cost than compromise. Start with the recent strikes. An American response inside Iran is followed by Iranian attacks on U.S. assets in Jordan and on ships in Egypt. If Washington turns to economic warfare or tries to blockade Iran, Tehran will simply drag the conflict back into military escalation. Landis agrees. He argues the White House still believes it can force Iran to back down by gradually degrading its economy, missile capabilities and military infrastructure. But every new round of pressure pushes Iran to widen the conflict instead, creating economic pain for America's regional partners and demonstrating that no country is insulated from the consequences. Egypt is the perfect example. Even if American ships are the intended target, attacks near Egypt threaten tourism, Suez Canal traffic and one of the region's most fragile economies. The point isn't necessarily Egypt itself. It's proving that pressure on Iran can quickly become pressure on everyone else. That brings Landis to the real issue: the Strait of Hormuz. He argues this war is ultimately about who controls one of the world's most important energy chokepoints. For decades, American dominance in the Gulf has underpinned its global influence. But Landis says preserving that dominance through military force is becoming increasingly difficult. His argument is that even if Washington steps back, Iran cannot simply shut off global oil forever. Tehran also depends on exporting its own energy, meaning every Gulf state ultimately has an incentive to reach some form of accommodation. The real question isn't whether oil will keep flowing, but whether the United States remains the power that guarantees it. Landis warns that continuing to escalate may actually accelerate the decline Washington is trying to prevent. Joshua Landis

Mario Nawfal

272,598 views • 1 month ago

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Prof. Mohammad Marandi: Iran isn’t interested in another deal. It’s waiting for America to honor the last one. Washington appears to be betting that economic pressure will eventually force Iran back to the negotiating table. Prof. Mohammad Marandi thinks that fundamentally misunderstands Tehran’s position. Iran, he says, believes the negotiation is already over. Trump signed an agreement. Tehran now expects Washington to implement it, and until that happens, Marandi says there will be no new negotiations. “We have a deal. You signed that piece of paper. Whenever you implement the deal, then come talking.” That creates a dangerous problem. The U.S. is continuing its economic siege while Iran has explicitly warned that if Washington succeeds in seriously damaging its economy, Tehran will respond militarily. Iran cannot sanction American banks or shut down the U.S. economy, Marandi argues, so its response would be against U.S. economic assets, or assets it considers linked to Washington, across the region. Then America faces pressure to retaliate. And the cycle starts again. Marandi says a larger war in the coming weeks or months is now a serious possibility, whether triggered by Iranian retaliation, a desperate U.S. escalation, or another Israeli attack that pulls Washington back in. The two sides aren't negotiating toward the same finish line anymore. Washington is waiting for Iran to concede. Iran, meanwhile, is waiting for Washington to concede first. Seyed Mohammad Marandi
46:13

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Prof. Mohammad Marandi: Iran isn’t interested in another deal. It’s waiting for America to honor the last one. Washington appears to be betting that economic pressure will eventually force Iran back to the negotiating table. Prof. Mohammad Marandi thinks that fundamentally misunderstands Tehran’s position. Iran, he says, believes the negotiation is already over. Trump signed an agreement. Tehran now expects Washington to implement it, and until that happens, Marandi says there will be no new negotiations. “We have a deal. You signed that piece of paper. Whenever you implement the deal, then come talking.” That creates a dangerous problem. The U.S. is continuing its economic siege while Iran has explicitly warned that if Washington succeeds in seriously damaging its economy, Tehran will respond militarily. Iran cannot sanction American banks or shut down the U.S. economy, Marandi argues, so its response would be against U.S. economic assets, or assets it considers linked to Washington, across the region. Then America faces pressure to retaliate. And the cycle starts again. Marandi says a larger war in the coming weeks or months is now a serious possibility, whether triggered by Iranian retaliation, a desperate U.S. escalation, or another Israeli attack that pulls Washington back in. The two sides aren't negotiating toward the same finish line anymore. Washington is waiting for Iran to concede. Iran, meanwhile, is waiting for Washington to concede first. Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Mario Nawfal

335,898 views • 12 days ago

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran's latest attack struck U.S military facilities in Kuwait and the UAE, but the timing may be more important than the attack itself. The previous U.S-Iran exchange had effectively stopped. Washington decided not to retaliate against Iran's last barrage and reports suggest Trump’s team is actively trying to avoid another major escalation before the midterms. Iran attacked again anyway. And to understand why, look at what Washington is doing behind the scenes. The U.S is intensifying its economic campaign against Tehran, reportedly instructing embassies around the world to pressure governments to cut Iranian trade, with countries, companies and individuals potentially threatened with sanctions or a loss of access to the dollar system. Meanwhile, the UAE has become an important partner in Washington's attempt to keep oil moving through Hormuz and tighten the economic screws on Iran. Then Iran hits U.S-linked military infrastructure in the UAE and Kuwait. That makes these strikes look less like retaliation for something America already did and more like a warning about what comes next: If Washington turns the Gulf into the infrastructure for an economic war against Iran, Tehran may turn that same infrastructure into the battlefield. And that creates a serious problem for Trump's apparent pivot from military war to economic war. Sanctions were supposed to provide a way of squeezing Iran without another major exchange of missiles. Iran may be signalling that it doesn't intend to let America separate the two. Brandon Weichert
1:08:27

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran's latest attack struck U.S military facilities in Kuwait and the UAE, but the timing may be more important than the attack itself. The previous U.S-Iran exchange had effectively stopped. Washington decided not to retaliate against Iran's last barrage and reports suggest Trump’s team is actively trying to avoid another major escalation before the midterms. Iran attacked again anyway. And to understand why, look at what Washington is doing behind the scenes. The U.S is intensifying its economic campaign against Tehran, reportedly instructing embassies around the world to pressure governments to cut Iranian trade, with countries, companies and individuals potentially threatened with sanctions or a loss of access to the dollar system. Meanwhile, the UAE has become an important partner in Washington's attempt to keep oil moving through Hormuz and tighten the economic screws on Iran. Then Iran hits U.S-linked military infrastructure in the UAE and Kuwait. That makes these strikes look less like retaliation for something America already did and more like a warning about what comes next: If Washington turns the Gulf into the infrastructure for an economic war against Iran, Tehran may turn that same infrastructure into the battlefield. And that creates a serious problem for Trump's apparent pivot from military war to economic war. Sanctions were supposed to provide a way of squeezing Iran without another major exchange of missiles. Iran may be signalling that it doesn't intend to let America separate the two. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

340,144 views • 21 days ago

My interview #newsroom CNN: A. Trump’s threats against #Oman reflect a deeper U.S. concern over the emerging regional order around the Strait of Hormuz. Washington fears that an Omani-Iranian arrangement could effectively legitimize a significant Iranian role in managing the Strait, while broader diplomatic pressure from Gulf staes could increase pressure on the United States to ease or remove its naval blockade. B. Trump’s approach toward Oman risks further eroding U.S. credibility among Gulf partners. For Gulf states, the question is increasingly whether Washington remains a predictable security guarantor or whether even long-standing partners and mediators can suddenly become targets of American coercion. Those doubts were already intensified by the war with Iran, and threats against Oman could reinforce the perception that U.S. commitments and relationships are increasingly transactional and unpredictable C. Economic pressure alone is unlikely to produce Iranian capitulation. Tehran appears to believe that it can absorb substantial economic pain as long as it can impose significant costs on the United States and its regional partners in return. That creates a dangerous asymmetry: Washington may view sanctions and military pressure as tools for forcing concessions, while Tehran may view escalation itself as a source of leverage. If Iranian leaders ultimately conclude that they face a choice between strategic capitulation and another round of escalation, they are more likely to escalate than surrende, particularly as control over Hormuz gives them an unusually powerful instrument for imposing economic costs beyond Iran itself. D. On Gaza, the core obstacle is that the political incentives of Netanyahu and Hamas remain fundamentally incompatible. Netanyahu has little domestic political room to accept an arrangement that could be portrayed as leaving Hamas militarily intact, while Hamas has little incentive to accept genuine and irreversible disarmament. Its preference would be to preserve enough military capability, or at least the ability to regenerate it, to remain a relevant actor in Gaza. As a result, the most consequential decisions over Gaza’s political and security architecture may ultimately be postponed until after Israel’s elections, when the Israeli government has greater political latitude to make compromises that would currently carry prohibitive domestic costs. #IranWar‌
6:17

My interview #newsroom CNN: A. Trump’s threats against #Oman reflect a deeper U.S. concern over the emerging regional order around the Strait of Hormuz. Washington fears that an Omani-Iranian arrangement could effectively legitimize a significant Iranian role in managing the Strait, while broader diplomatic pressure from Gulf staes could increase pressure on the United States to ease or remove its naval blockade. B. Trump’s approach toward Oman risks further eroding U.S. credibility among Gulf partners. For Gulf states, the question is increasingly whether Washington remains a predictable security guarantor or whether even long-standing partners and mediators can suddenly become targets of American coercion. Those doubts were already intensified by the war with Iran, and threats against Oman could reinforce the perception that U.S. commitments and relationships are increasingly transactional and unpredictable C. Economic pressure alone is unlikely to produce Iranian capitulation. Tehran appears to believe that it can absorb substantial economic pain as long as it can impose significant costs on the United States and its regional partners in return. That creates a dangerous asymmetry: Washington may view sanctions and military pressure as tools for forcing concessions, while Tehran may view escalation itself as a source of leverage. If Iranian leaders ultimately conclude that they face a choice between strategic capitulation and another round of escalation, they are more likely to escalate than surrende, particularly as control over Hormuz gives them an unusually powerful instrument for imposing economic costs beyond Iran itself. D. On Gaza, the core obstacle is that the political incentives of Netanyahu and Hamas remain fundamentally incompatible. Netanyahu has little domestic political room to accept an arrangement that could be portrayed as leaving Hamas militarily intact, while Hamas has little incentive to accept genuine and irreversible disarmament. Its preference would be to preserve enough military capability, or at least the ability to regenerate it, to remain a relevant actor in Gaza. As a result, the most consequential decisions over Gaza’s political and security architecture may ultimately be postponed until after Israel’s elections, when the Israeli government has greater political latitude to make compromises that would currently carry prohibitive domestic costs. #IranWar‌

Danny (Dennis) Citrinowicz ,داني سيترينوفيتش

15,646 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇨🇳 The U.S. is burning through some of its hardest-to-replace weapons against Iran, while Tehran claims 85% of its air-defense production capacity survived the war. Open-source estimates suggest America has already expended around 80% of its pre-war THAAD interceptors and roughly half or more of key Patriot stocks. America can't solve its growing munitions problem simply by throwing more money at defense contractors. Beijing dominates the processing of several critical minerals used in American missiles, radars and aircraft, giving it another potential pressure point over Washington. China needs Middle Eastern oil routes reopened, but restricting those supplies could make it even harder for America to sustain a prolonged war while Iran tries to outlast it. Beijing would likely decide that some short-term economic pain is worth helping Iran force Washington to fold. Writer: Mhedi
3:32

🇺🇸🇨🇳 The U.S. is burning through some of its hardest-to-replace weapons against Iran, while Tehran claims 85% of its air-defense production capacity survived the war. Open-source estimates suggest America has already expended around 80% of its pre-war THAAD interceptors and roughly half or more of key Patriot stocks. America can't solve its growing munitions problem simply by throwing more money at defense contractors. Beijing dominates the processing of several critical minerals used in American missiles, radars and aircraft, giving it another potential pressure point over Washington. China needs Middle Eastern oil routes reopened, but restricting those supplies could make it even harder for America to sustain a prolonged war while Iran tries to outlast it. Beijing would likely decide that some short-term economic pain is worth helping Iran force Washington to fold. Writer: Mhedi

Mario Nawfal

44,128 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's paused the bombing and replaced it with economic warfare, but Iran's response is that Washington no longer gets to decide when the shooting starts again. In a major escalation, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi says Tehran now considers pre-emptive strikes against U.S interests a legitimate option if it believes its national survival is threatened. His argument is remarkably direct: Why should Iran always wait for America to attack first? If Tehran believes another attack is coming, or that American pressure has become existential, Gharibabadi says Iran can act first. And the timing matters. Rubio is reportedly telling regional counterparts that Washington does not currently intend to launch new strikes on Iran, with Trump's pressure instead running through the naval blockade and Operation Economic Outcast. Military action remains available if Iran attacks first. That's precisely what makes Iran's new position so dangerous. Trump appears to believe he can freeze the military conflict while slowly tightening the economic noose around Tehran. But if the sanctions begin seriously biting, or Tehran concludes Washington is preparing another attack, it could choose to strike American interests first. And after the last war, Iran is considerably less intimidated by that prospect. Then there's Trump's other problem: China. Operation Economic Outcast only works if the countries keeping Iran economically connected can be pressured into compliance. But if Beijing refuses, Trump faces an ugly choice: tolerate a huge hole in the sanctions regime or confront China and risk retaliation involving rare earth minerals that are critical to U.S weapons production. Trump may have decided the military war is paused. Iran is warning him that decision is no longer his alone. Brandon Weichert
1:00:41

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's paused the bombing and replaced it with economic warfare, but Iran's response is that Washington no longer gets to decide when the shooting starts again. In a major escalation, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi says Tehran now considers pre-emptive strikes against U.S interests a legitimate option if it believes its national survival is threatened. His argument is remarkably direct: Why should Iran always wait for America to attack first? If Tehran believes another attack is coming, or that American pressure has become existential, Gharibabadi says Iran can act first. And the timing matters. Rubio is reportedly telling regional counterparts that Washington does not currently intend to launch new strikes on Iran, with Trump's pressure instead running through the naval blockade and Operation Economic Outcast. Military action remains available if Iran attacks first. That's precisely what makes Iran's new position so dangerous. Trump appears to believe he can freeze the military conflict while slowly tightening the economic noose around Tehran. But if the sanctions begin seriously biting, or Tehran concludes Washington is preparing another attack, it could choose to strike American interests first. And after the last war, Iran is considerably less intimidated by that prospect. Then there's Trump's other problem: China. Operation Economic Outcast only works if the countries keeping Iran economically connected can be pressured into compliance. But if Beijing refuses, Trump faces an ugly choice: tolerate a huge hole in the sanctions regime or confront China and risk retaliation involving rare earth minerals that are critical to U.S weapons production. Trump may have decided the military war is paused. Iran is warning him that decision is no longer his alone. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

317,029 views • 29 days ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump has tried military force and economic strangulation against Iran; now Tehran has concluded that pressure simply does not work Iran has taken enormous punishment. Its economy is reeling, inflation is brutal, and its military has absorbed repeated strikes. But six months into the war, the regime is still standing, and crucially, Iran can still disrupt the Strait of Hormuz. Middle East scholar Joshua Landis believes that has fundamentally changed Tehran's calculation. Washington has moved from military force to its new “Economic D-Day,” but the regional cooperation needed to make that strategy truly devastating isn't materialising. Iraq, Turkey, the UAE and Qatar still have powerful incentives to trade with Iran. Oman is negotiating with Tehran. Pakistan and Qatar are talking to the Iranians. These countries don't want another regional war or a permanently closed Persian Gulf, and Iran knows it. Joshua says Tehran increasingly believes America has already played its strongest cards, which makes surrender even less attractive. Iranian leaders now believe that if they cave to Trump's demands, America and Israel will simply return once Iran has recovered and hit it again. In Joshua's words, Iran fears becoming another Gaza, Lebanon or Syria; periodically attacked to keep it permanently weak. So Tehran has reached the opposite conclusion: It has to make resisting Iran more painful than living with it. Tehran may finally have learned the difference between America having the power to hurt it, and having the power to make it surrender. Joshua Landis Brandon Weichert
26:59

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump has tried military force and economic strangulation against Iran; now Tehran has concluded that pressure simply does not work Iran has taken enormous punishment. Its economy is reeling, inflation is brutal, and its military has absorbed repeated strikes. But six months into the war, the regime is still standing, and crucially, Iran can still disrupt the Strait of Hormuz. Middle East scholar Joshua Landis believes that has fundamentally changed Tehran's calculation. Washington has moved from military force to its new “Economic D-Day,” but the regional cooperation needed to make that strategy truly devastating isn't materialising. Iraq, Turkey, the UAE and Qatar still have powerful incentives to trade with Iran. Oman is negotiating with Tehran. Pakistan and Qatar are talking to the Iranians. These countries don't want another regional war or a permanently closed Persian Gulf, and Iran knows it. Joshua says Tehran increasingly believes America has already played its strongest cards, which makes surrender even less attractive. Iranian leaders now believe that if they cave to Trump's demands, America and Israel will simply return once Iran has recovered and hit it again. In Joshua's words, Iran fears becoming another Gaza, Lebanon or Syria; periodically attacked to keep it permanently weak. So Tehran has reached the opposite conclusion: It has to make resisting Iran more painful than living with it. Tehran may finally have learned the difference between America having the power to hurt it, and having the power to make it surrender. Joshua Landis Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

215,721 views • 27 days ago