Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🇺🇸🇮🇷 INTERVIEW: HEATED DEBATE ON WHETHER THE U.S. SHOULD STRIKE IRAN Tensions are rising fast, military options are on the table, and the debate over deterrence versus escalation is reaching a boiling point. NYT Best Seller Joel Rosenberg argues Iran has spent decades funding armed proxy groups that kill...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,286,202 subscribers

1,798,098 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & PolitikBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 “TRUMP HAS 3 OPTIONS, AND NONE ARE CLEAN” Joel C. Rosenberg says Trump is boxed in on Iran, with 3 paths on the table: do nothing and lose credibility, launch a large but limited strike, or go all-in on regime change. While regime change might sound appealing, it's not realistic from the air, and repeating Iraq or Afghanistan is a nonstarter. Instead, Trump is most likely to choose a hard but contained strike to seriously damage Iran’s military while avoiding ownership of whatever comes next. Full Interview with Joel C. Rosenberg and Glenn Diesen below.
5:28

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 “TRUMP HAS 3 OPTIONS, AND NONE ARE CLEAN” Joel C. Rosenberg says Trump is boxed in on Iran, with 3 paths on the table: do nothing and lose credibility, launch a large but limited strike, or go all-in on regime change. While regime change might sound appealing, it's not realistic from the air, and repeating Iraq or Afghanistan is a nonstarter. Instead, Trump is most likely to choose a hard but contained strike to seriously damage Iran’s military while avoiding ownership of whatever comes next. Full Interview with Joel C. Rosenberg and Glenn Diesen below.

Mario Nawfal

60,136 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 THE U.S. AND IRAN ARE IN A STALEMATE OF MISALIGNED INCENTIVES In Prof. Glenn Diesen’s view, all diplomatic routes between the U.S. and Iran go in circles because Washington is unwilling to make any legitimate concessions. If Trump were to pursue regime change, he believes it would resemble something closer to the Ukraine war than a quick Maduro-style capture, with China and Russia arming Iran if its survival were at stake. NYT Best Seller Joel Rosenberg, meanwhile, argues that the threat Iran poses to Israel and American interests in the Middle East leaves no choice but to treat it as an enemy at every stage of negotiations. Full debate between Glenn Diesen and Joel C. Rosenberg below
7:31

🇺🇸🇮🇷 THE U.S. AND IRAN ARE IN A STALEMATE OF MISALIGNED INCENTIVES In Prof. Glenn Diesen’s view, all diplomatic routes between the U.S. and Iran go in circles because Washington is unwilling to make any legitimate concessions. If Trump were to pursue regime change, he believes it would resemble something closer to the Ukraine war than a quick Maduro-style capture, with China and Russia arming Iran if its survival were at stake. NYT Best Seller Joel Rosenberg, meanwhile, argues that the threat Iran poses to Israel and American interests in the Middle East leaves no choice but to treat it as an enemy at every stage of negotiations. Full debate between Glenn Diesen and Joel C. Rosenberg below

Mario Nawfal

37,288 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 “EVEN A LIMITED STRIKE WOULD TURN INTO A BIG WAR” Glenn Diesen warns that even a so-called limited U.S. strike on Iran would be seen as an existential threat, not a warning shot. Iran wouldn’t absorb a “bloody nose” quietly, but would respond all-out; targeting U.S. assets, escalating across the region, and potentially shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Regime change talk ignores Iran’s internal complexity, where collapse could mean fragmentation, chaos, and outcomes far worse than the status quo. And once you start down this road, there’s no clean off-ramp, and history suggests it won’t stay “limited” for long. Full Interview with Joel C. Rosenberg and Glenn Diesen below.
7:42

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 “EVEN A LIMITED STRIKE WOULD TURN INTO A BIG WAR” Glenn Diesen warns that even a so-called limited U.S. strike on Iran would be seen as an existential threat, not a warning shot. Iran wouldn’t absorb a “bloody nose” quietly, but would respond all-out; targeting U.S. assets, escalating across the region, and potentially shutting down the Strait of Hormuz. Regime change talk ignores Iran’s internal complexity, where collapse could mean fragmentation, chaos, and outcomes far worse than the status quo. And once you start down this road, there’s no clean off-ramp, and history suggests it won’t stay “limited” for long. Full Interview with Joel C. Rosenberg and Glenn Diesen below.

Mario Nawfal

60,636 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 “THE NUCLEAR DEAL ISN’T THE REAL ISSUE” Joel C. Rosenberg says Iran only offering to negotiate its nuclear program misses the point, because the nuclear program is already largely destroyed. The real problem is Iran’s ballistic missiles, proxy forces, and a regime that’s spent decades attacking U.S. allies and openly calling for America’s destruction. But Glenn Diesen pushes back, saying Iran was willing to make a nuclear deal, but the U.S. keeps piling on extra demands; missiles, regional alliances, leverage, that no country would accept without risking its own survival. The standoff shows why talks keep collapsing: one side sees nukes as just one piece of a much bigger threat, the other sees expanding demands as proof the goal isn’t a deal at all. Full Interview with Joel C. Rosenberg and Glenn Diesen below.
3:03

🇺🇸🇮🇷 “THE NUCLEAR DEAL ISN’T THE REAL ISSUE” Joel C. Rosenberg says Iran only offering to negotiate its nuclear program misses the point, because the nuclear program is already largely destroyed. The real problem is Iran’s ballistic missiles, proxy forces, and a regime that’s spent decades attacking U.S. allies and openly calling for America’s destruction. But Glenn Diesen pushes back, saying Iran was willing to make a nuclear deal, but the U.S. keeps piling on extra demands; missiles, regional alliances, leverage, that no country would accept without risking its own survival. The standoff shows why talks keep collapsing: one side sees nukes as just one piece of a much bigger threat, the other sees expanding demands as proof the goal isn’t a deal at all. Full Interview with Joel C. Rosenberg and Glenn Diesen below.

Mario Nawfal

51,942 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇮🇷🇮🇱 A REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN WOULD SERVE ISRAELI EXPANSIONISM Prof. Glenn Diesen believes Gulf states have urged the U.S. to pursue a diplomatic route with Iran because they fear Iran’s collapse could allow Israel to annex territory across the Middle East. He fears that, in such a scenario, Israel could expand the kind of rule it has imposed on Gaza across the region. Full debate between Glenn Diesen and Joel C. Rosenberg below
2:53

🇮🇷🇮🇱 A REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN WOULD SERVE ISRAELI EXPANSIONISM Prof. Glenn Diesen believes Gulf states have urged the U.S. to pursue a diplomatic route with Iran because they fear Iran’s collapse could allow Israel to annex territory across the Middle East. He fears that, in such a scenario, Israel could expand the kind of rule it has imposed on Gaza across the region. Full debate between Glenn Diesen and Joel C. Rosenberg below

Mario Nawfal

166,137 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 IRAN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD BE A WORSE MONSTER THAN NORTH KOREA Bestselling author Joel Rosenberg suggested that the U.S. should crack down on Iran's ballistic missile programs almost as urgently as it seeks to limit the regime's enrichment of uranium. He argued that any prospect of Iran developing ICBMs must be nipped in the bud to make sure it doesn't become a direct intercontinental threat. A ballistically empowered Iran would be as dangerous as North Korea could have been if its hatred of the U.S. had religious fervor. Full debate between Glenn Diesen and Joel C. Rosenberg below
3:02

🇺🇸🇮🇷 IRAN WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD BE A WORSE MONSTER THAN NORTH KOREA Bestselling author Joel Rosenberg suggested that the U.S. should crack down on Iran's ballistic missile programs almost as urgently as it seeks to limit the regime's enrichment of uranium. He argued that any prospect of Iran developing ICBMs must be nipped in the bud to make sure it doesn't become a direct intercontinental threat. A ballistically empowered Iran would be as dangerous as North Korea could have been if its hatred of the U.S. had religious fervor. Full debate between Glenn Diesen and Joel C. Rosenberg below

Mario Nawfal

56,163 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🚨🇺🇸 WHY THE U.S. MILITARY POWER FACES "RAPID EXHAUSTION" Scott warns of the imminent collapse of American military capabilities, predicted to be measured in weeks as the conflict escalates. While the U.S. and Israel seek regime change, he highlights that Iran has immediately targeted U.S. bases in the UAE and Qatar, bypassing traditional escalation ladders. He signals a brutal new reality: with Tehran under fire, Iran views this as an existential war and may target Gulf city centers to shatter the fragile stability of regional U.S. allies. Full interview with Scott Ritter below
3:26

🚨🇺🇸 WHY THE U.S. MILITARY POWER FACES "RAPID EXHAUSTION" Scott warns of the imminent collapse of American military capabilities, predicted to be measured in weeks as the conflict escalates. While the U.S. and Israel seek regime change, he highlights that Iran has immediately targeted U.S. bases in the UAE and Qatar, bypassing traditional escalation ladders. He signals a brutal new reality: with Tehran under fire, Iran views this as an existential war and may target Gulf city centers to shatter the fragile stability of regional U.S. allies. Full interview with Scott Ritter below

Mario Nawfal

319,173 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨🇺🇸 🇮🇷 STRATEGIC RETALIATION: WHY IRAN IS STRIKING BACK While Western policymakers celebrate the death of the previous Supreme Leader, they ignore the reality that the new leadership is even more hardline. As noted by Glenn Diesen, Iran’s decision to strike U.S. bases and regional allies is a calculated strategic move to show that standing with the U.S. comes at a heavy cost. The doubling down by U.S. politicians ignores the fact that the mission has clearly backfired. The U.S. position in the region has been weakened, and the repercussions of this miscalculation will be immense. Glenn Diesen
9:26

🚨🇺🇸 🇮🇷 STRATEGIC RETALIATION: WHY IRAN IS STRIKING BACK While Western policymakers celebrate the death of the previous Supreme Leader, they ignore the reality that the new leadership is even more hardline. As noted by Glenn Diesen, Iran’s decision to strike U.S. bases and regional allies is a calculated strategic move to show that standing with the U.S. comes at a heavy cost. The doubling down by U.S. politicians ignores the fact that the mission has clearly backfired. The U.S. position in the region has been weakened, and the repercussions of this miscalculation will be immense. Glenn Diesen

Mario Nawfal

38,144 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨 NEW: Trump says the U.S. struck Iran because, if he “didn’t hit them first,” Tehran would have “taken over the Middle East” and attacked Israel. Speaking to reporters today, President Trump said Iran was planning to “take over the Middle East” with its “thousands of missiles” and “try and destroy Israel” — two of the three justifications he cited for launching the U.S.-Israeli regime change war against Iran on February 28. Trump also claimed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, saying Iranian negotiators had effectively told Washington: “We want to continue to build nuclear weapons.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X in the days before the first U.S. strike that Iran will “under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon,” a position also confirmed by Oman’s foreign minister, who was mediating the talks. Since coming to power in the 1979 revolution, Iran’s regime has not initiated a war against another state, but it has supported armed groups resisting Israel’s occupation and expansion.
0:52

🚨 NEW: Trump says the U.S. struck Iran because, if he “didn’t hit them first,” Tehran would have “taken over the Middle East” and attacked Israel. Speaking to reporters today, President Trump said Iran was planning to “take over the Middle East” with its “thousands of missiles” and “try and destroy Israel” — two of the three justifications he cited for launching the U.S.-Israeli regime change war against Iran on February 28. Trump also claimed Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, saying Iranian negotiators had effectively told Washington: “We want to continue to build nuclear weapons.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X in the days before the first U.S. strike that Iran will “under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon,” a position also confirmed by Oman’s foreign minister, who was mediating the talks. Since coming to power in the 1979 revolution, Iran’s regime has not initiated a war against another state, but it has supported armed groups resisting Israel’s occupation and expansion.

Drop Site

80,364 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 EX-U.S. COLONEL: HOW CLOSE THE U.S. AND IRAN ARE TO WAR Daniel Davis says the U.S. and Iran are closer to conflict than most realize. Iran’s missiles caused serious damage in the 12-day war, forcing Israel into a ceasefire. With tens of thousands of U.S. troops scattered across the region, many at vulnerable bases, Iran has warned that if war breaks out, American sites won’t be safe. Israel and the U.S. have a history of taking out key leaders. Iran knows it, and any strike would be met with backups and contingency plans. If this escalates, it could get messy, spread across the region, and be hard to control. Full Interview with Daniel Davis below
4:26

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 EX-U.S. COLONEL: HOW CLOSE THE U.S. AND IRAN ARE TO WAR Daniel Davis says the U.S. and Iran are closer to conflict than most realize. Iran’s missiles caused serious damage in the 12-day war, forcing Israel into a ceasefire. With tens of thousands of U.S. troops scattered across the region, many at vulnerable bases, Iran has warned that if war breaks out, American sites won’t be safe. Israel and the U.S. have a history of taking out key leaders. Iran knows it, and any strike would be met with backups and contingency plans. If this escalates, it could get messy, spread across the region, and be hard to control. Full Interview with Daniel Davis below

Mario Nawfal

59,521 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 IS ISRAEL DRAGGING THE U.S. INTO ANOTHER FOREVER WAR? This debate between Cenk Uygur and IDF’s Jonathan Conricus got very very heated. I’ve never seen Cenk so upset The discussion started with a focus on the imminent war with Iran, and whether it is in America’s best interest Iran cannot reach the U.S. mainland with its missiles, does not have a nuclear weapon despite decades of warnings the country is on the verge of one, and has made it clear it does not want a war with the U.S. Cenk argues the Israeli lobby is the reason the U.S. is about to start a new war Jonathan disagrees, criticizing those who blame Israel for everything. In his view, Iran is building a nuclear weapon, as well as ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S., and has a history of destabilizing the region while killing U.S. servicemen through their proxies. The debate then moves to Israeli policy in the region, and the future of Gaza and the West Bank, and this is where it gets very emotional. Jonathan does not believe in a two-state solution, and Cenk equates that with genocide, asking one question: What will happen to the Palestinians if they do not accept to be integrated into Israel? Watch the full debate below with @jconricus0 and Cenk Uygur below. 03:00 - War nearly guaranteed, U.S. military buildup largest since Iraq, Israel controlling US policy 06:02 - Israel’s three “reasons” for war: nukes, missiles, foreign policy... none serve US interests 09:20 - Iranian people’s protests ignored; focus should be on their freedom, not regime 12:40 - Iranian regime’s threat: nuclear ambitions, ballistic missiles, proxy wars 16:15 - US has historic chance to reshape Middle East, reduce Iranian terror influence 19:50 - Critique of US politicians prioritizing Israel over Americans; 80% oppose war 23:30 - Israel blamed for pushing US into wars repeatedly; weapons of mass destruction parallels 27:15 - Jonathan argues Iran threatens Israel; discussion of Iranian missile capabilities 31:00 - Israel’s defense role vs US leadership in the region; Iran-China-Russia tech cooperation 34:45 - Extremist insurgencies likely if Iran invaded; past examples Iraq & Afghanistan 38:20 - Israel’s “Greater Israel” ambitions and annexations; impact on Palestinians 41:50 - Historical context: 1948 Nakba and ethnic cleansing accusations revisited 45:30 - Debate over Palestinian resistance vs Israeli self-defense; moral questions raised 49:10 - US public largely against war; Israel benefits more than America from regime collapse 52:45 - Peace offers to Palestinians rejected multiple times; Israel insists on defense 55:30 - Current Israeli strategy: annexation, control over Judea & Samaria, handling 5.5M Palestinians
57:25

🇺🇸🇮🇷 IS ISRAEL DRAGGING THE U.S. INTO ANOTHER FOREVER WAR? This debate between Cenk Uygur and IDF’s Jonathan Conricus got very very heated. I’ve never seen Cenk so upset The discussion started with a focus on the imminent war with Iran, and whether it is in America’s best interest Iran cannot reach the U.S. mainland with its missiles, does not have a nuclear weapon despite decades of warnings the country is on the verge of one, and has made it clear it does not want a war with the U.S. Cenk argues the Israeli lobby is the reason the U.S. is about to start a new war Jonathan disagrees, criticizing those who blame Israel for everything. In his view, Iran is building a nuclear weapon, as well as ballistic missiles that can reach the U.S., and has a history of destabilizing the region while killing U.S. servicemen through their proxies. The debate then moves to Israeli policy in the region, and the future of Gaza and the West Bank, and this is where it gets very emotional. Jonathan does not believe in a two-state solution, and Cenk equates that with genocide, asking one question: What will happen to the Palestinians if they do not accept to be integrated into Israel? Watch the full debate below with @jconricus0 and Cenk Uygur below. 03:00 - War nearly guaranteed, U.S. military buildup largest since Iraq, Israel controlling US policy 06:02 - Israel’s three “reasons” for war: nukes, missiles, foreign policy... none serve US interests 09:20 - Iranian people’s protests ignored; focus should be on their freedom, not regime 12:40 - Iranian regime’s threat: nuclear ambitions, ballistic missiles, proxy wars 16:15 - US has historic chance to reshape Middle East, reduce Iranian terror influence 19:50 - Critique of US politicians prioritizing Israel over Americans; 80% oppose war 23:30 - Israel blamed for pushing US into wars repeatedly; weapons of mass destruction parallels 27:15 - Jonathan argues Iran threatens Israel; discussion of Iranian missile capabilities 31:00 - Israel’s defense role vs US leadership in the region; Iran-China-Russia tech cooperation 34:45 - Extremist insurgencies likely if Iran invaded; past examples Iraq & Afghanistan 38:20 - Israel’s “Greater Israel” ambitions and annexations; impact on Palestinians 41:50 - Historical context: 1948 Nakba and ethnic cleansing accusations revisited 45:30 - Debate over Palestinian resistance vs Israeli self-defense; moral questions raised 49:10 - US public largely against war; Israel benefits more than America from regime collapse 52:45 - Peace offers to Palestinians rejected multiple times; Israel insists on defense 55:30 - Current Israeli strategy: annexation, control over Judea & Samaria, handling 5.5M Palestinians

Mario Nawfal

521,913 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

🚨 INTERVIEW: COL. MACGREGOR ON HOW A WAR WITH IRAN COULD LOOK LIKE Why didn’t Trump strike Iran last month? Was it Israeli unpreparedness, pressure from the Gulf, or his military advisors warning the U.S. isn’t ready for war? With a military buildup still underway in the region, a U.S. strike remains likely. So how would Iran retaliate? Hired by Trump as senior advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, Macgregor warns Iran’s capabilities now far exceed what they were during his time in the military and during the 12-day war, as Putin and Xi have heavily armed the country in recent months. Iran’s small diesel submarines (perfect for the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf), thousands of naval mines, and a large stockpile of missiles and mobile batteries hidden in mountainous terrain make the war a nightmare for the U.S., the region, and even the global economy. Subs and mines could shut down the crucial Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global oil crisis. Iran’s ballistic missiles could overwhelm U.S. defenses in the region, including the USS Abraham Lincoln. And while the war rages, China, Russia, and even Turkey may not sit idle. That could turn the conflict regional and further drain American munition stockpiles. 03:28 - Venezuela oil companies reluctant to operate, turning to mercenaries for protection 04:07 - Discussion on Trump's “secret weapon” and air defense disruption claims 04:54 - Iran protests brutally suppressed; airstrike plans reportedly halted 06:13 - Mossad, CIA, MI6 involvement escalated protests into potential regime change 07:20 - U.S. military assembling additional forces; air campaign planning underway 08:27 - Air Force poised for sustained bombing campaign; Navy limited by missile stock 09:54 - Iran’s missile and air capabilities now stronger than in 2020 11:16 - Russian and Chinese assistance improving Iran’s integrated air defenses 12:33 - Questions on Iran’s long-range missile reach and potential threats 14:03 - U.S. negotiating with Iran while signaling military readiness 15:21 - Assets in the region underestimated; more military presence deployed 16:05 - Iran refuses to negotiate missile program limitations 17:11 - Differences between previous air campaign and current potential operations 18:30 - Objective of U.S./Israel air campaign: destabilize Iranian state 19:57 - Turkey’s position as regional wildcard in potential Iranian conflict 22:12 - NATO’s limited role; European militaries unable to influence outcomes 25:37 - Iran’s drone swarm and naval capabilities assessed; U.S. preparedness discussed 28:32 - Iran could mine Strait of Hormuz as last resort; Chinese support mitigates impact 32:33 - Russia and China potential intervention if Iran regime collapses 36:30 - Iran strike consequences for Ukraine and Taiwan; U.S. and NATO credibility questioned 39:35 - Taiwan strategic assessment; Trump’s view aligns with non-intervention
40:28

🚨 INTERVIEW: COL. MACGREGOR ON HOW A WAR WITH IRAN COULD LOOK LIKE Why didn’t Trump strike Iran last month? Was it Israeli unpreparedness, pressure from the Gulf, or his military advisors warning the U.S. isn’t ready for war? With a military buildup still underway in the region, a U.S. strike remains likely. So how would Iran retaliate? Hired by Trump as senior advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, Macgregor warns Iran’s capabilities now far exceed what they were during his time in the military and during the 12-day war, as Putin and Xi have heavily armed the country in recent months. Iran’s small diesel submarines (perfect for the shallow waters of the Persian Gulf), thousands of naval mines, and a large stockpile of missiles and mobile batteries hidden in mountainous terrain make the war a nightmare for the U.S., the region, and even the global economy. Subs and mines could shut down the crucial Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global oil crisis. Iran’s ballistic missiles could overwhelm U.S. defenses in the region, including the USS Abraham Lincoln. And while the war rages, China, Russia, and even Turkey may not sit idle. That could turn the conflict regional and further drain American munition stockpiles. 03:28 - Venezuela oil companies reluctant to operate, turning to mercenaries for protection 04:07 - Discussion on Trump's “secret weapon” and air defense disruption claims 04:54 - Iran protests brutally suppressed; airstrike plans reportedly halted 06:13 - Mossad, CIA, MI6 involvement escalated protests into potential regime change 07:20 - U.S. military assembling additional forces; air campaign planning underway 08:27 - Air Force poised for sustained bombing campaign; Navy limited by missile stock 09:54 - Iran’s missile and air capabilities now stronger than in 2020 11:16 - Russian and Chinese assistance improving Iran’s integrated air defenses 12:33 - Questions on Iran’s long-range missile reach and potential threats 14:03 - U.S. negotiating with Iran while signaling military readiness 15:21 - Assets in the region underestimated; more military presence deployed 16:05 - Iran refuses to negotiate missile program limitations 17:11 - Differences between previous air campaign and current potential operations 18:30 - Objective of U.S./Israel air campaign: destabilize Iranian state 19:57 - Turkey’s position as regional wildcard in potential Iranian conflict 22:12 - NATO’s limited role; European militaries unable to influence outcomes 25:37 - Iran’s drone swarm and naval capabilities assessed; U.S. preparedness discussed 28:32 - Iran could mine Strait of Hormuz as last resort; Chinese support mitigates impact 32:33 - Russia and China potential intervention if Iran regime collapses 36:30 - Iran strike consequences for Ukraine and Taiwan; U.S. and NATO credibility questioned 39:35 - Taiwan strategic assessment; Trump’s view aligns with non-intervention

Mario Nawfal

2,125,742 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇮🇱 🇮🇷 Israel may be forced to act alone against Iran: Israel Hayom, a prominent Israeli newspaper often aligned with government views published an article today that was interesting. The article argues that any U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement must explicitly limit Iran's ballistic missile production, stockpiling and capabilities. Failing to take necessary measures would leave Israel vulnerable to an existential threat posed by Iran's missiles, which can transport nuclear warheads if Iran moves forward with its program, regardless of any nuclear constraints. In the event that a new deal fails to address missiles, Israel would be left with no option but to unilaterally attack Iranian missile facilities or related infrastructure to neutralize the threat, even without U.S. assistance. I see it as unlikely that the U.S. and Iran will come to an agreement in the negotiations. I usually don't focus so much on what is conveyed through the media but more on what reinforcements the U.S. is sending to the region. Given that, it is obvious that the U.S. is preparing for war.
0:22

🇮🇱 🇮🇷 Israel may be forced to act alone against Iran: Israel Hayom, a prominent Israeli newspaper often aligned with government views published an article today that was interesting. The article argues that any U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement must explicitly limit Iran's ballistic missile production, stockpiling and capabilities. Failing to take necessary measures would leave Israel vulnerable to an existential threat posed by Iran's missiles, which can transport nuclear warheads if Iran moves forward with its program, regardless of any nuclear constraints. In the event that a new deal fails to address missiles, Israel would be left with no option but to unilaterally attack Iranian missile facilities or related infrastructure to neutralize the threat, even without U.S. assistance. I see it as unlikely that the U.S. and Iran will come to an agreement in the negotiations. I usually don't focus so much on what is conveyed through the media but more on what reinforcements the U.S. is sending to the region. Given that, it is obvious that the U.S. is preparing for war.

WORLD AT WAR

24,074 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇺🇸🇮🇷 SHOULD THE U.S. STRIKE IRAN? "IF THE GOAL IS WEAKEN THE REGIME AND NEGOTIATE, I'M IN" Patrick Bet-David, an Iranian-American entrepreneur and journalist, shares his opinion on the complex decision of whether the U.S. should strike Iran. He’s critical of the Iranian regime but highlights the risks involved. "If the goal is to completely destroy the regime, I worry about a massive power vacuum and chaos like Libya or Iraq. But if the intention is to weaken the regime and pressure them into negotiation, I could get behind it. I’d be open to pressuring Iran for a peaceful resolution but definitely not a full-scale war. I trust Trump’s instincts on these matters, but the real question is, how do we handle this situation long-term?" Patrick Bet-David
5:40

🇺🇸🇮🇷 SHOULD THE U.S. STRIKE IRAN? "IF THE GOAL IS WEAKEN THE REGIME AND NEGOTIATE, I'M IN" Patrick Bet-David, an Iranian-American entrepreneur and journalist, shares his opinion on the complex decision of whether the U.S. should strike Iran. He’s critical of the Iranian regime but highlights the risks involved. "If the goal is to completely destroy the regime, I worry about a massive power vacuum and chaos like Libya or Iraq. But if the intention is to weaken the regime and pressure them into negotiation, I could get behind it. I’d be open to pressuring Iran for a peaceful resolution but definitely not a full-scale war. I trust Trump’s instincts on these matters, but the real question is, how do we handle this situation long-term?" Patrick Bet-David

Mario Nawfal

27,639 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Iran to become the fourth center of world power Robert Pape is an American political scientist and professor at the University of Chicago. His military planning and war-gaming experience includes teaching air-power strategy at the U.S. Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies (1991–1994). He has advised every White House since 9/11 on military and air-war strategy. For over 20 years, he has run Iran-war simulations in his strategy courses, modeling bombing campaigns, escalation dynamics, and political outcomes to help the military and government understand how force translates into political results. On the Mario Nawfal show, Robert Pape argued that Iran is on a rapid path to become the fourth center of world power (alongside the U.S., China, and Russia) within roughly a year to 18 months if the current conflict dynamics continue. He explained that the ongoing war has trapped the U.S. in an “escalation trap” across three stages: failed regime-change bombing that hardened the Iranian regime, horizontal escalation (drones hitting regional targets and selective control of the Strait of Hormuz), and potential ground operations. Iran has already gained practical control of the Strait of Hormuz—through which 20% of global oil flows—allowing it to disrupt supplies, impose tolls, or expand influence to the Red Sea choke point. This would make Iran an oil hegemon richer than the U.S. (which produces ~16% of world oil). Combined with near-certain operational nuclear weapons (he estimated >90% chance of a dozen working bombs within a year if the war stops), Iran would acquire nuclear deterrence like North Korea while wielding unmatched energy leverage. Pape stressed he is not saying Iran is already the fourth power today, but that the war itself has created a “propitious” future for Tehran: it strengthens the regime, weakens adversaries, and positions Iran as a nuclear-armed regional hegemon capable of toppling Gulf states and reshaping global energy politics. Prolonged conflict or U.S. withdrawal would hand Iran this status, turning a contained adversary into a new pole of world power. He based this on 21 years of Iran-war modeling.
3:02

Iran to become the fourth center of world power Robert Pape is an American political scientist and professor at the University of Chicago. His military planning and war-gaming experience includes teaching air-power strategy at the U.S. Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies (1991–1994). He has advised every White House since 9/11 on military and air-war strategy. For over 20 years, he has run Iran-war simulations in his strategy courses, modeling bombing campaigns, escalation dynamics, and political outcomes to help the military and government understand how force translates into political results. On the Mario Nawfal show, Robert Pape argued that Iran is on a rapid path to become the fourth center of world power (alongside the U.S., China, and Russia) within roughly a year to 18 months if the current conflict dynamics continue. He explained that the ongoing war has trapped the U.S. in an “escalation trap” across three stages: failed regime-change bombing that hardened the Iranian regime, horizontal escalation (drones hitting regional targets and selective control of the Strait of Hormuz), and potential ground operations. Iran has already gained practical control of the Strait of Hormuz—through which 20% of global oil flows—allowing it to disrupt supplies, impose tolls, or expand influence to the Red Sea choke point. This would make Iran an oil hegemon richer than the U.S. (which produces ~16% of world oil). Combined with near-certain operational nuclear weapons (he estimated >90% chance of a dozen working bombs within a year if the war stops), Iran would acquire nuclear deterrence like North Korea while wielding unmatched energy leverage. Pape stressed he is not saying Iran is already the fourth power today, but that the war itself has created a “propitious” future for Tehran: it strengthens the regime, weakens adversaries, and positions Iran as a nuclear-armed regional hegemon capable of toppling Gulf states and reshaping global energy politics. Prolonged conflict or U.S. withdrawal would hand Iran this status, turning a contained adversary into a new pole of world power. He based this on 21 years of Iran-war modeling.

Ramin-negahdari

33,185 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

🇺🇸❌Full-scale war between the U.S. and Iran: According to recent reports, the U.S. military is getting ready for extended operations over the course of weeks against Iran if President Donald Trump decides to launch an attack. This planning marks a significant escalation from previous strategies, moving toward a "far more serious conflict" than seen in past years. Unlike the June 2025 "Midnight Hammer" operation, which was a limited strike on Iranian nuclear sites, current plans include hitting state and security facilities in addition to nuclear infrastructure. The Pentagon has also recently deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier to join the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Middle East, doubling the available aircraft and munitions in the region. I believe a full-scale war will break out between the U.S. and Iran in the coming weeks.
1:03

🇺🇸❌Full-scale war between the U.S. and Iran: According to recent reports, the U.S. military is getting ready for extended operations over the course of weeks against Iran if President Donald Trump decides to launch an attack. This planning marks a significant escalation from previous strategies, moving toward a "far more serious conflict" than seen in past years. Unlike the June 2025 "Midnight Hammer" operation, which was a limited strike on Iranian nuclear sites, current plans include hitting state and security facilities in addition to nuclear infrastructure. The Pentagon has also recently deployed the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier to join the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Middle East, doubling the available aircraft and munitions in the region. I believe a full-scale war will break out between the U.S. and Iran in the coming weeks.

WORLD AT WAR

18,490 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

🇮🇷 INTERVIEW – TRITA PARSI: “ISRAEL WANTED TO TURN IRAN INTO ANOTHER SYRIA OR LEBANON” Trita Parsi says Israel aimed to strike Iran with impunity, but the reality proved far more costly than expected. Trita Parsi: “The goal was to turn Iran into a country Israel could strike at will, like Syria or Lebanon. But Israel could not even carry out this attack without U.S. support. They hoped to achieve more with the first strike, but Iran’s missile response was stronger than expected. Toward the end of the war, more missiles were penetrating Israeli defenses and causing serious damage. Military censorship in Israel has limited public understanding, but the full picture is starting to emerge. Israel likely would have kept going if the U.S. had stayed in the fight. Once Washington pulled back, the cost-benefit shifted, and Israel agreed to a ceasefire.”
1:21

🇮🇷 INTERVIEW – TRITA PARSI: “ISRAEL WANTED TO TURN IRAN INTO ANOTHER SYRIA OR LEBANON” Trita Parsi says Israel aimed to strike Iran with impunity, but the reality proved far more costly than expected. Trita Parsi: “The goal was to turn Iran into a country Israel could strike at will, like Syria or Lebanon. But Israel could not even carry out this attack without U.S. support. They hoped to achieve more with the first strike, but Iran’s missile response was stronger than expected. Toward the end of the war, more missiles were penetrating Israeli defenses and causing serious damage. Military censorship in Israel has limited public understanding, but the full picture is starting to emerge. Israel likely would have kept going if the U.S. had stayed in the fight. Once Washington pulled back, the cost-benefit shifted, and Israel agreed to a ceasefire.”

Mario Nawfal

297,532 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

I’m breaking down the real strategy—and the real risk—when it comes to Iran. The president made a decision based on intelligence: target Iran’s military capabilities, their nuclear program, and their ballistic missiles. That’s about national security and preventing a far greater threat. But the bigger question is what comes next. Do you negotiate? Do you escalate? Can you even trust a regime that has violated agreements for decades and openly embraces deception as strategy? This is about Iran, nuclear weapons, U.S. foreign policy, military strategy, and the reality of dealing with a terrorist regime. Follow Liberty’s Voice with Mark Levin on YouTube and Rumble for more on Iran, geopolitics, national security, and America’s role in the world. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:
1:18

I’m breaking down the real strategy—and the real risk—when it comes to Iran. The president made a decision based on intelligence: target Iran’s military capabilities, their nuclear program, and their ballistic missiles. That’s about national security and preventing a far greater threat. But the bigger question is what comes next. Do you negotiate? Do you escalate? Can you even trust a regime that has violated agreements for decades and openly embraces deception as strategy? This is about Iran, nuclear weapons, U.S. foreign policy, military strategy, and the reality of dealing with a terrorist regime. Follow Liberty’s Voice with Mark Levin on YouTube and Rumble for more on Iran, geopolitics, national security, and America’s role in the world. To watch the entire episode: Rumble: YouTube:

Mark R. Levin

46,271 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨 BREAKING: USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN MOVES INTO POSITION NEAR IRAN The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, accompanied by destroyers and other warships, is heading toward the Middle East amid rising tensions with Iran following Tehran’s violent crackdown on protests and broader geopolitical friction. President Trump has described a large U.S. naval “armada” moving toward the Gulf region as a signal of strength and deterrence against Iran. The carrier and escort vessels include Tomahawk-armed destroyers and a powerful air wing, positioning U.S. forces to project power and reinforce allies if needed. While some reports suggested the Abraham Lincoln has yet to enter the CENTCOM area of responsibility and may not yet be within direct striking range, the deployment underscores a major shift in U.S. military posture toward Iran. America is visibly stepping up pressure — and Iran is on notice.
2:26

🚨 BREAKING: USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN MOVES INTO POSITION NEAR IRAN The USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group, accompanied by destroyers and other warships, is heading toward the Middle East amid rising tensions with Iran following Tehran’s violent crackdown on protests and broader geopolitical friction. President Trump has described a large U.S. naval “armada” moving toward the Gulf region as a signal of strength and deterrence against Iran. The carrier and escort vessels include Tomahawk-armed destroyers and a powerful air wing, positioning U.S. forces to project power and reinforce allies if needed. While some reports suggested the Abraham Lincoln has yet to enter the CENTCOM area of responsibility and may not yet be within direct striking range, the deployment underscores a major shift in U.S. military posture toward Iran. America is visibly stepping up pressure — and Iran is on notice.

Jim Ferguson

31,627 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Tucker Carlson on Iran: “The Iraq war was a catastrophe, and Trump was the first major political figure willing to say so. He’s always known it. So the question is: why would he even contemplate another war, this time with Iran? One answer is that Washington may not fully control whether such a war begins. Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, could decide to strike Iran on its own, without coordination. If that happened, Iran would almost certainly retaliate against Israel, and could also hit U.S. assets and energy infrastructure in the Gulf. At that point, America would be pulled in automatically. From that perspective, the U.S. may not be seeking a war with Iran at all, but instead trying to restrain the actions of its closest ally and prevent a wider conflict.”
1:16

Tucker Carlson on Iran: “The Iraq war was a catastrophe, and Trump was the first major political figure willing to say so. He’s always known it. So the question is: why would he even contemplate another war, this time with Iran? One answer is that Washington may not fully control whether such a war begins. Israel, under Benjamin Netanyahu, could decide to strike Iran on its own, without coordination. If that happened, Iran would almost certainly retaliate against Israel, and could also hit U.S. assets and energy infrastructure in the Gulf. At that point, America would be pulled in automatically. From that perspective, the U.S. may not be seeking a war with Iran at all, but instead trying to restrain the actions of its closest ally and prevent a wider conflict.”

Open Source Intel

58,984 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten