Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran’s nuclear red line may no longer be permanent For years, Tehran’s position was relatively straightforward: Iran would remain inside the NPT, maintain that nuclear weapons were forbidden, and use enrichment as leverage rather than build a bomb. Prof. Mohammad Marandi says that position still stands. But for...

331,770 просмотров • 4 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 14

Фото профиля ClipForge
ClipForge4 дней назад

.,;,.-

Фото профиля David Beaudry | VYLØS
David Beaudry | VYLØS4 дней назад

iran's nuclear red line may not be permanent. the escalation ladder shifts

Фото профиля Alireza builds 🔨
Alireza builds 🔨4 дней назад

withdrawal from the NPT without actually building a weapon is honestly a genius move if you think about it. All the leverage none of the sanctions trigger

Фото профиля kinezz09
kinezz094 дней назад

IRAN PLAYING 4D CHESS WHILE EVERYONE ELSE IS STILL SETTING UP THE BOARD

Фото профиля Shakhan
Shakhan4 дней назад

shifting lines in the sand are never quiet

Фото профиля gorpcore♡ghost
gorpcore♡ghost4 дней назад

so basically Iran is saying the assumptions that kept this stable are no longer guaranteed. That should concern a lot more people than it currently does

Фото профиля Memeconomics
Memeconomics4 дней назад

How fast could they actually enrich to weapons grade from current stockpiles?

Фото профиля Susan
Susan4 дней назад

It is difficult to achieve complete control over the gradual pressure on the energy channel. Once shipping costs soar, the market response is often one-time, rather than precisely adjustable leverage.

Фото профиля thebusinessguy
thebusinessguy4 дней назад

Hormuz traffic isn't gradual, it's binary.

Фото профиля samvod builds 🔨
samvod builds 🔨4 дней назад

The fact that Iran is even hinting at NPT withdrawal as leverage tells you how much the calculus has shifted over the last year or two

Фото профиля h.sayik
h.sayik4 дней назад

We all want Iran to have nukes ASAP to protect its schoolkids from being murdered by satanically evil USraHELL.

Фото профиля vøv △
vøv △4 дней назад

Geopolitics heating up while the charts stay flat. How do you see this impacting the $BTC liquidity flow?

Фото профиля nullsigner
nullsigner4 дней назад

lol nothing like threatening to maybe possibly reconsider your nuclear posture to really liven up diplomatic talks

Фото профиля Miyaa
Miyaa4 дней назад

Hmm so they're not building a bomb but they want everyone to know they could really fast. That's a very specific kind of message to send

Похожие видео

🇮🇷 Iran may have more to lose from building a nuclear bomb than from not building one. After months of war, attacks on Iranian territory and growing calls inside Iran for a nuclear deterrent, the obvious assumption is that Tehran is now closer to building the bomb. Pravin Sawhney argues the opposite. “𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘨𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴.” Iran doesn't lack the capability. In his view, Tehran no longer needs one. Sawhney argues Iran has demonstrated enough conventional missile capability to deter further escalation while simultaneously building something potentially more valuable: a regional security architecture with Gulf states and backing from Russia and China. A nuclear weapon could blow that apart. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐𝘳𝘢𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘦𝘤𝘤𝘢 𝘑𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘋𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘈𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘴.” Instead of being viewed as a partner against outside intervention, Iran could suddenly look like the regional hegemon its neighbors need protection from. That leads Sawhney to a very different reading of Tehran’s strategy. Iran’s ultimate deterrent may not be a bomb. It may be making the American military presence in the region increasingly unnecessary. Pravin Sawhney

Mario Nawfal

245,813 просмотров • 1 день назад

🇮🇷🇺🇸 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 просмотров • 25 дней назад

🇮🇷🇺🇸 The Strait of Hormuz may be reopening, but not on America's terms. Reports suggest Iran and Oman are close to finalising a new arrangement for shipping through the Strait, which, at first glance, looks like a de-escalation; Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi says it is anything but. According to him, this isn't America restoring the old order; it's adapting to a new one. Iran has made one point non-negotiable: Nothing moves through Hormuz without Tehran knowing about it. Prof. Marandi says Oman and Iran have spent weeks negotiating a framework that keeps the Strait coordinated rather than divided. Iran insisted it would never accept a system where Oman managed one side while Tehran had no oversight of the other. Instead, he says, every vessel would remain subject to Iranian coordination. And even if an agreement is signed, that doesn't mean Hormuz suddenly returns to normal. Prof. Marandi argues that Trump first has to return to the broader Memorandum of Understanding that Washington abandoned. That means more than just shipping; it means sanctions relief, releasing frozen Iranian assets, and potentially new understandings covering Yemen and Gaza as well. Only then, he says, can the Strait be fully normalised. And the kicker this time is that Prof. Marandi doesn't believe Iran will simply reopen Hormuz and trust Washington to keep its promises later. He says Tehran will want key concessions delivered first. Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Mario Nawfal

353,023 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🇮🇷🇺🇸 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

334,167 просмотров • 11 дней назад

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 просмотров • 20 дней назад