Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

One thing Scott Horton kept circling back to is how misleading the surface story is. His view is that what looks like a shift by Trump is less a new strategy and more a forced attempt to contain escalation that is already out of control. Horton argues Trump never...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,623,770 subscribers

263,495 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Новости и политика
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

SCOTT HORTON: HOW FAR CAN NATO PUSH RUSSIA BEFORE IT HITS BACK? Ukraine continues targeting civilian infrastructure inside Russia with support from its EU and NATO allies. Is Russia holding back from a larger retaliation, and for how long? Scott Horton argues NATO and the EU helped provoke Russia by expanding NATO deeper into Eastern Europe. He warns that pushing American power toward Russia’s border could intensify the war and accelerate a stronger Russia-China coalition. As strikes continue and the conflict expands, the risk is no longer limited to Ukraine. It is whether escalation on Russia’s doorstep draws the world into an even bigger confrontation.
4:48

SCOTT HORTON: HOW FAR CAN NATO PUSH RUSSIA BEFORE IT HITS BACK? Ukraine continues targeting civilian infrastructure inside Russia with support from its EU and NATO allies. Is Russia holding back from a larger retaliation, and for how long? Scott Horton argues NATO and the EU helped provoke Russia by expanding NATO deeper into Eastern Europe. He warns that pushing American power toward Russia’s border could intensify the war and accelerate a stronger Russia-China coalition. As strikes continue and the conflict expands, the risk is no longer limited to Ukraine. It is whether escalation on Russia’s doorstep draws the world into an even bigger confrontation.

Redacted

15,766 просмотров • 10 дней назад

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The strongest argument against this war came from the vice president: a few men with an RPG can close the strait, and only a deal can keep it open Scott Horton keeps coming back to what Vance told Joe Rogan. The strait is so narrow that a handful of men with a rocket launcher could shut it, which means the only thing that keeps it open is a government in Tehran that wants it open, and you only get that at a negotiating table. For saying so, Vance was attacked by his own side. Horton admits he expected the fighting to stay inside an unspoken understanding that a final deal was still coming, and the last month proved him wrong, though he adds: "I still think I'm right, I'm just too early" Every president since Johnson has kept a losing war going rather than be the one who ended it, and that instinct, not strategy, is what this round is running on. Scott Horton Brandon Weichert
54:09

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The strongest argument against this war came from the vice president: a few men with an RPG can close the strait, and only a deal can keep it open Scott Horton keeps coming back to what Vance told Joe Rogan. The strait is so narrow that a handful of men with a rocket launcher could shut it, which means the only thing that keeps it open is a government in Tehran that wants it open, and you only get that at a negotiating table. For saying so, Vance was attacked by his own side. Horton admits he expected the fighting to stay inside an unspoken understanding that a final deal was still coming, and the last month proved him wrong, though he adds: "I still think I'm right, I'm just too early" Every president since Johnson has kept a losing war going rather than be the one who ended it, and that instinct, not strategy, is what this round is running on. Scott Horton Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

223,202 просмотров • 26 дней назад

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 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

🇺🇸🇮🇷 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 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 A power plant or a bridge for every tanker hit, that's the formula turning this into a regional energy war. Alex Christoforou breaks down how the conflict escalated into an energy war in all but name, with the Strait of Hormuz as the ultimate pressure point: "Iran understands this, and the last thing that Iran wants to have happen is a long, drawn out conflict, which is why they're going to hold on to the big leverage." Control of Hormuz is the whole game. Everything else is noise. Alex Christoforou
3:51

🇺🇸 🇮🇷 A power plant or a bridge for every tanker hit, that's the formula turning this into a regional energy war. Alex Christoforou breaks down how the conflict escalated into an energy war in all but name, with the Strait of Hormuz as the ultimate pressure point: "Iran understands this, and the last thing that Iran wants to have happen is a long, drawn out conflict, which is why they're going to hold on to the big leverage." Control of Hormuz is the whole game. Everything else is noise. Alex Christoforou

Mario Nawfal

90,018 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

To the Iranian people: Stand firm. Do not bow, and do not take a single step back. In Washington, Trump is in a dilemma. He wanted a quick war and a show of force, but the truth is clear: the American people do not want this war, and even within the military there are those who refuse to sacrifice their lives in a conflict that is not theirs. They thought Iran would tremble… But today, it is Washington’s arrogance that is trembling.
0:42

To the Iranian people: Stand firm. Do not bow, and do not take a single step back. In Washington, Trump is in a dilemma. He wanted a quick war and a show of force, but the truth is clear: the American people do not want this war, and even within the military there are those who refuse to sacrifice their lives in a conflict that is not theirs. They thought Iran would tremble… But today, it is Washington’s arrogance that is trembling.

SilencedSirs◼️

81,776 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

From “Hezbollah Is Defeated” to “Hezbollah Is Everywhere”: How Threat Inflation Becomes Strategy Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent claim that “Iran is in cahoots with Venezuela and is sending Hezbollah to the United States” marks a dramatic escalation in rhetoric, and a revealing shift in Israel’s strategic messaging. Only weeks earlier, Netanyahu and senior Israeli military officials were publicly asserting that Hezbollah’s capabilities had been largely dismantled. Now, the same actor is being presented not as weakened or contained, but as globally mobile, operating in Latin America and preparing attacks on U.S. soil. This contradiction is not incidental. It reflects a familiar pattern: as regional justifications lose force, the threat narrative expands geographically. When Hezbollah is no longer sufficient as a local enemy, it is reimagined as a hemispheric or even global one. The purpose of this expansion is not descriptive, it is political. It is designed to internationalize Israel’s wars and shift their burden outward. 📌The Strategic Function of Linking Iran to Venezuela The attempt to connect Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela is not a security discovery; it is a political construction. By invoking Venezuela, a state already framed in Washington as hostile, Netanyahu inserts Israel’s conflict into America’s own ideological and strategic architecture. This framing does not merely seek sympathy; it seeks entanglement. If Iran is no longer just a Middle Eastern actor but a Latin American one, then Israel’s war is no longer regional. It becomes America’s problem, America’s security, America’s war. 📌From Regional War to Global Escalation In recent years, Israel’s leadership has increasingly framed its conflicts not as territorial or political disputes, but as civilizational confrontations, “the free world versus barbarism,” “democracy versus terror,” and now, “Iran everywhere.” This logic contains a built-in escalatory mechanism: no victory is ever sufficient, because the threat is never localized or finite. It is always elsewhere, always expanding, always metastasizing. In this sense, the rhetoric does not aim to prevent war. It aims to normalize permanence, a condition in which war is not an event, but an environment. A regional war is dangerous but containable. A globalized war is open-ended, and therefore permanently mobilizing. 📌The Political Incentive Behind Permanent Crisis Netanyahu governs through crisis. Crisis postpones accountability, suppresses dissent, delays political reckoning, and overrides normal legal and democratic constraints. By presenting Israel not as a state among others but as the frontline of a global civilizational war, Netanyahu elevates his government from a political authority into a perceived necessity, insulated from criticism because it is framed as indispensable. This is why ceasefires are treated as defeats, de-escalation as danger, and diplomacy as appeasement. Peace is destabilizing, because peace returns politics. 📌Manufacturing a Global Enemy to Sustain a Permanent War The claim about Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela is not primarily about intelligence. It is about narrative control. It is the transformation of a regional conflict into a global moral emergency, one that demands permanent alignment, expanding resources, political impunity, and open-ended war. When leaders argue that enemies are everywhere, borders lose meaning, conflicts lose limits, and wars lose endpoints. What is being defended is no longer a state. It is a system of permanent confrontation. And in such a system, the greatest danger is not that war will spread unintentionally, but that it is being deliberately pushed outward.
0:23

From “Hezbollah Is Defeated” to “Hezbollah Is Everywhere”: How Threat Inflation Becomes Strategy Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent claim that “Iran is in cahoots with Venezuela and is sending Hezbollah to the United States” marks a dramatic escalation in rhetoric, and a revealing shift in Israel’s strategic messaging. Only weeks earlier, Netanyahu and senior Israeli military officials were publicly asserting that Hezbollah’s capabilities had been largely dismantled. Now, the same actor is being presented not as weakened or contained, but as globally mobile, operating in Latin America and preparing attacks on U.S. soil. This contradiction is not incidental. It reflects a familiar pattern: as regional justifications lose force, the threat narrative expands geographically. When Hezbollah is no longer sufficient as a local enemy, it is reimagined as a hemispheric or even global one. The purpose of this expansion is not descriptive, it is political. It is designed to internationalize Israel’s wars and shift their burden outward. 📌The Strategic Function of Linking Iran to Venezuela The attempt to connect Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela is not a security discovery; it is a political construction. By invoking Venezuela, a state already framed in Washington as hostile, Netanyahu inserts Israel’s conflict into America’s own ideological and strategic architecture. This framing does not merely seek sympathy; it seeks entanglement. If Iran is no longer just a Middle Eastern actor but a Latin American one, then Israel’s war is no longer regional. It becomes America’s problem, America’s security, America’s war. 📌From Regional War to Global Escalation In recent years, Israel’s leadership has increasingly framed its conflicts not as territorial or political disputes, but as civilizational confrontations, “the free world versus barbarism,” “democracy versus terror,” and now, “Iran everywhere.” This logic contains a built-in escalatory mechanism: no victory is ever sufficient, because the threat is never localized or finite. It is always elsewhere, always expanding, always metastasizing. In this sense, the rhetoric does not aim to prevent war. It aims to normalize permanence, a condition in which war is not an event, but an environment. A regional war is dangerous but containable. A globalized war is open-ended, and therefore permanently mobilizing. 📌The Political Incentive Behind Permanent Crisis Netanyahu governs through crisis. Crisis postpones accountability, suppresses dissent, delays political reckoning, and overrides normal legal and democratic constraints. By presenting Israel not as a state among others but as the frontline of a global civilizational war, Netanyahu elevates his government from a political authority into a perceived necessity, insulated from criticism because it is framed as indispensable. This is why ceasefires are treated as defeats, de-escalation as danger, and diplomacy as appeasement. Peace is destabilizing, because peace returns politics. 📌Manufacturing a Global Enemy to Sustain a Permanent War The claim about Iran, Hezbollah, and Venezuela is not primarily about intelligence. It is about narrative control. It is the transformation of a regional conflict into a global moral emergency, one that demands permanent alignment, expanding resources, political impunity, and open-ended war. When leaders argue that enemies are everywhere, borders lose meaning, conflicts lose limits, and wars lose endpoints. What is being defended is no longer a state. It is a system of permanent confrontation. And in such a system, the greatest danger is not that war will spread unintentionally, but that it is being deliberately pushed outward.

Ibrahim Majed

33,500 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's former lawyer Robert Barnes thinks the U.S has entered the most dangerous phase of the Iran war. Not because America is getting stronger, but because it's running out of time. He believes Trump knows the window for this war is rapidly closing and that he can't sustain the conflict indefinitely. So instead, Trump's trying one final gamble: Escalate hard enough, and fast enough, that Iran finally breaks. The problem is that every new strike is hardening Iranian public opinion. A population that overwhelmingly opposed developing nuclear weapons before the conflict is, he says, becoming increasingly convinced they need one as the only reliable deterrent against another attack. That's why Robert believes Trump's strategy is fundamentally flawed. He's trying to force concessions from a country that now sees surrender as even more dangerous than war. Robert doesn't think America has the military, economic, or political capacity to keep this conflict going for months. His expectation is a short, intense escalation followed by Trump declaring victory and looking for an exit. But if Trump keeps trying to force one last breakthrough, Iran could retaliate by striking critical infrastructure across the Gulf. Trump may be escalating because he knows time is running out. But every escalation is making the outcome he wants less likely, not more. Robert Barnes
50:53

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's former lawyer Robert Barnes thinks the U.S has entered the most dangerous phase of the Iran war. Not because America is getting stronger, but because it's running out of time. He believes Trump knows the window for this war is rapidly closing and that he can't sustain the conflict indefinitely. So instead, Trump's trying one final gamble: Escalate hard enough, and fast enough, that Iran finally breaks. The problem is that every new strike is hardening Iranian public opinion. A population that overwhelmingly opposed developing nuclear weapons before the conflict is, he says, becoming increasingly convinced they need one as the only reliable deterrent against another attack. That's why Robert believes Trump's strategy is fundamentally flawed. He's trying to force concessions from a country that now sees surrender as even more dangerous than war. Robert doesn't think America has the military, economic, or political capacity to keep this conflict going for months. His expectation is a short, intense escalation followed by Trump declaring victory and looking for an exit. But if Trump keeps trying to force one last breakthrough, Iran could retaliate by striking critical infrastructure across the Gulf. Trump may be escalating because he knows time is running out. But every escalation is making the outcome he wants less likely, not more. Robert Barnes

Mario Nawfal

294,970 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

EP-07 with U.S. Foreign Policy Analyst Scott Horton premieres tomorrow at 12 PM IST | ANI Broadcast “Trump has given a lifeline to Netanyahu, and it shows he can’t completely destroy Hamas.” Scott Horton on the Israel–Hamas ceasefire deal “The so-called 12-day war is really only an intermission.” Scott Horton predicts another Iran–Israel war “The CIA knew AQ Khan stole the blueprints, and they let him leave the country.” Scott Horton “ISI supports groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, fanatics who could trigger a major confrontation.” Scott Horton #ANIBroadcast #Trump #Hamas #Ceasefire #Israel #Netanyahu #PeaceDeal #Pakistan #USA Tap 'notify me' to get episode alerts:
1:39

EP-07 with U.S. Foreign Policy Analyst Scott Horton premieres tomorrow at 12 PM IST | ANI Broadcast “Trump has given a lifeline to Netanyahu, and it shows he can’t completely destroy Hamas.” Scott Horton on the Israel–Hamas ceasefire deal “The so-called 12-day war is really only an intermission.” Scott Horton predicts another Iran–Israel war “The CIA knew AQ Khan stole the blueprints, and they let him leave the country.” Scott Horton “ISI supports groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, fanatics who could trigger a major confrontation.” Scott Horton #ANIBroadcast #Trump #Hamas #Ceasefire #Israel #Netanyahu #PeaceDeal #Pakistan #USA Tap 'notify me' to get episode alerts:

ANI

409,625 просмотров • 11 месяцев 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
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 просмотров • 27 дней назад

🇮🇷🇺🇸 U.S. bases in Iraq are one political shift away from being completely cut off and surrounded The moment Iraq's prime minister tilts toward Iran, every American soldier there becomes isolated with no clean exit, and Scott Horton is blunt: The U.S. should have left the day after 2003, and every day it stays makes the eventual cost higher. It's not a forever war by accident, but by institutional design. Scott Horton
1:54

🇮🇷🇺🇸 U.S. bases in Iraq are one political shift away from being completely cut off and surrounded The moment Iraq's prime minister tilts toward Iran, every American soldier there becomes isolated with no clean exit, and Scott Horton is blunt: The U.S. should have left the day after 2003, and every day it stays makes the eventual cost higher. It's not a forever war by accident, but by institutional design. Scott Horton

Mario Nawfal

112,894 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🇮🇷 🇺🇸 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 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

NBC News’ Kristen Welker: “The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “We have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, ‘Well, just take a little bit of it.’” “But what we know is that the U.S., that Greenland can only be defended it if is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.”
0:56

NBC News’ Kristen Welker: “The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “We have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, ‘Well, just take a little bit of it.’” “But what we know is that the U.S., that Greenland can only be defended it if is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.”

RedWave Press

976,306 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Joe Kent thinks Trump is turning into the president he promised America he would never be Trump didn't campaign on policing Lebanon, protecting shipping lanes for countries that refuse to protect themselves, or getting dragged back into another endless Middle East conflict. He campaigned for NO MORE WARS. The same foreign policy establishment that told America Iraq would be quick, Afghanistan would be worth it, Libya would become a democracy, and Ukraine could weaken Russia indefinitely is now telling Trump that one more push, one more deployment, one more round of pressure will finally solve Iran. Joe's warning is that he's heard this story before. He spent years inside the national security apparatus watching Washington promise that every new intervention would be the last one. It never was. Joe believes Trump knows the American people are exhausted, knows the Iran campaign failed to deliver the decisive victory many promised, and knows the country wants to move on. The problem, he argues, is that every time Trump tries to step back, the same forces pull him back in. The military offers another plan, the foreign policy establishment says victory is just one more strike away, and Israel argues the job isn't finished. That's the trap Joe kept coming back to. Not that Trump has changed, but that Washington is trying to change him. Because once you accept the logic that America has to stay just a little longer, spend just a little more, and escalate just one more time, you've already accepted the logic that kept the U.S. stuck in the Middle East for a generation. Joe Kent
45:59

Joe Kent thinks Trump is turning into the president he promised America he would never be Trump didn't campaign on policing Lebanon, protecting shipping lanes for countries that refuse to protect themselves, or getting dragged back into another endless Middle East conflict. He campaigned for NO MORE WARS. The same foreign policy establishment that told America Iraq would be quick, Afghanistan would be worth it, Libya would become a democracy, and Ukraine could weaken Russia indefinitely is now telling Trump that one more push, one more deployment, one more round of pressure will finally solve Iran. Joe's warning is that he's heard this story before. He spent years inside the national security apparatus watching Washington promise that every new intervention would be the last one. It never was. Joe believes Trump knows the American people are exhausted, knows the Iran campaign failed to deliver the decisive victory many promised, and knows the country wants to move on. The problem, he argues, is that every time Trump tries to step back, the same forces pull him back in. The military offers another plan, the foreign policy establishment says victory is just one more strike away, and Israel argues the job isn't finished. That's the trap Joe kept coming back to. Not that Trump has changed, but that Washington is trying to change him. Because once you accept the logic that America has to stay just a little longer, spend just a little more, and escalate just one more time, you've already accepted the logic that kept the U.S. stuck in the Middle East for a generation. Joe Kent

Mario Nawfal

258,906 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

MUST WATCH 🚨: NBC News’ Kristen Welker: “The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “We have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, ‘Well, just take a little bit of it.’” “But what we know is that the U.S., that Greenland can only be defended it if is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.”
0:56

MUST WATCH 🚨: NBC News’ Kristen Welker: “The Danish foreign minister says there hasn’t been a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade. What evidence do you have that this is a pressing threat?” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent: “We have asymmetric information. And again, President Trump is being strategic here. What evidence was there that the Russians were going into Crimea? Well, actually there was a lot of evidence that the Russians were going to go into Ukraine. And Joe Biden said, ‘Well, just take a little bit of it.’” “But what we know is that the U.S., that Greenland can only be defended it if is part of the U.S. And it will not need to be defended if it is part of the U.S. The president is trying to avoid a conflict.”

Dr Charlie Ward

277,707 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Bilbo Baggins: When a Life Is Stretched to Its Limit There is a line spoken by Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings that has stayed with me: “I’m old, Gandalf. I know I don’t look it, but I’m beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” At first, this might sound like nothing more than the complaint of someone who has lived too long. But what caught my attention was not that Bilbo says he is old. It is the way he describes that feeling: “I feel thin.” He does not say that he is in pain. He says that he is being stretched. And from there, I began to see this line as an image of a being carrying a burden greater than the scope of an ordinary life. This is my personal interpretation. Tolkien does not directly present a concept of “capacity” or “the elasticity of a life” in the way I am using those ideas here. I am simply taking Bilbo’s own image of “butter and bread” and using it to look more deeply into the feeling he is describing. Too Much Bread and Too Little Butter If I had to imagine that feeling through another image, I would think of a balloon. When it is in its natural state, it has a certain shape. As the pressure increases, it begins to stretch. It has not burst. But it is no longer in its original state. And I think Bilbo is much the same. He has possessed the Ring for sixty years. Yet what is remarkable is that, after all that time, Bilbo is still Bilbo. He still loves the Shire, loves Bag End, cares about Frodo, writes books, smokes, and talks with Gandalf. The Ring has affected him, but it has not completely taken over who he is. That is why I do not think Bilbo’s endurance should simply be understood as: “He was so strong that the Ring could not affect him.” Quite the opposite. The words “I feel thin, sort of stretched...” show that he has already begun to feel that pressure from within. And this is where the image of “butter and bread” becomes especially interesting. The piece of bread does not necessarily have to be understood as the Ring itself. In the way I see it, it is something broader. It is the entire scope of what Bilbo is carrying: the passing years, his unusual existence, the pressure of the Ring, and everything that comes with it. The butter, meanwhile, is Bilbo himself. A finite being with finite capacity. A little butter is enough for a reasonably sized piece of bread. But when it has to be spread across a piece of bread that is too large, it has to become thinner. And that is what I feel in Bilbo. It is not that he suddenly becomes weak. It is that the same being is having to stretch itself to accommodate a burden that has grown beyond the boundaries of an ordinary life. “Stretched” Does Not Mean Destroyed This is the part I find most important. Bilbo is still alive. He is still himself. He still has things he loves and still has the ability to experience the world around him. But something has appeared within him that perhaps was not there before: He feels that he is being stretched too thin. So, being “stretched” does not mean that Bilbo has been destroyed. It shows that he is still enduring, but that his endurance has begun to leave a mark. Being able to endure does not mean being unaffected. A person can endure something for a very long time and still become tired. Someone can continue living almost normally while inwardly feeling that they are being stretched too thin. Bilbo is in precisely that state. And perhaps that is why his next words feel so natural: “I need a holiday, a very long holiday...” I like the way Bilbo says this. He does not try to prove that he can endure more. He simply realizes that he needs to leave. To me, this is a remarkable form of awareness. Bilbo does not wait until he has completely lost himself before recognizing the problem. He realizes that he is being stretched. And from that realization, he wants to step away from the circumstances creating that pressure. Recognizing Your Limit Is Also a Form of Strength If we continue with the image of the balloon, Bilbo has enough elasticity to withstand that pressure for decades. But that elasticity is not infinite. The more it is stretched, the farther it moves from its original state. And what catches my attention most is that Bilbo is still aware enough to recognize this. From this perspective, I see Bilbo’s decision to leave in a different way. He does not leave because he has failed. He leaves because he has recognized his limit. To me, this is much more meaningful than simply saying that Bilbo is “strong” because he was able to possess the Ring for so long. A being can be remarkably resilient and still have limits. And being able to recognize those limits is not weakness. It is awareness. Bilbo does not say: “I can endure more.” He says, in a very different way: “I need a holiday.” Perhaps that simplicity is exactly what makes the line so thought-provoking. He does not need to prove how strong he is. He only needs to be honest about what he is feeling. Why Is the Image of the “Butter” So Sad? That is also why I find Bilbo’s image of the butter so sad. Bilbo is still there. He has not disappeared. He has not been destroyed. But he feels as though he has been spread too thin. The image does not describe a moment of collapse. It describes a process. The burden creates pressure. The pressure forces Bilbo to adapt. That prolonged adaptation makes him feel increasingly stretched. And eventually, he realizes that he cannot continue that way forever. That is what makes the words “I feel thin” so important. “Thin” is not a declaration of weakness. It is a sign that a being has been pulled away from its natural state for too long. And recognizing that opens a choice for Bilbo: To leave. It makes me see Bilbo differently: “Bilbo is not a being that cannot be stretched; he is a being that has endured pressure for a very long time, yet remained aware enough to recognize that his capacity to stretch is not infinite.” And perhaps that is what I like most about this line. Strength is not always about enduring more. Sometimes, strength is knowing that you have endured enough.
4:18

Bilbo Baggins: When a Life Is Stretched to Its Limit There is a line spoken by Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings that has stayed with me: “I’m old, Gandalf. I know I don’t look it, but I’m beginning to feel it in my heart. I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” At first, this might sound like nothing more than the complaint of someone who has lived too long. But what caught my attention was not that Bilbo says he is old. It is the way he describes that feeling: “I feel thin.” He does not say that he is in pain. He says that he is being stretched. And from there, I began to see this line as an image of a being carrying a burden greater than the scope of an ordinary life. This is my personal interpretation. Tolkien does not directly present a concept of “capacity” or “the elasticity of a life” in the way I am using those ideas here. I am simply taking Bilbo’s own image of “butter and bread” and using it to look more deeply into the feeling he is describing. Too Much Bread and Too Little Butter If I had to imagine that feeling through another image, I would think of a balloon. When it is in its natural state, it has a certain shape. As the pressure increases, it begins to stretch. It has not burst. But it is no longer in its original state. And I think Bilbo is much the same. He has possessed the Ring for sixty years. Yet what is remarkable is that, after all that time, Bilbo is still Bilbo. He still loves the Shire, loves Bag End, cares about Frodo, writes books, smokes, and talks with Gandalf. The Ring has affected him, but it has not completely taken over who he is. That is why I do not think Bilbo’s endurance should simply be understood as: “He was so strong that the Ring could not affect him.” Quite the opposite. The words “I feel thin, sort of stretched...” show that he has already begun to feel that pressure from within. And this is where the image of “butter and bread” becomes especially interesting. The piece of bread does not necessarily have to be understood as the Ring itself. In the way I see it, it is something broader. It is the entire scope of what Bilbo is carrying: the passing years, his unusual existence, the pressure of the Ring, and everything that comes with it. The butter, meanwhile, is Bilbo himself. A finite being with finite capacity. A little butter is enough for a reasonably sized piece of bread. But when it has to be spread across a piece of bread that is too large, it has to become thinner. And that is what I feel in Bilbo. It is not that he suddenly becomes weak. It is that the same being is having to stretch itself to accommodate a burden that has grown beyond the boundaries of an ordinary life. “Stretched” Does Not Mean Destroyed This is the part I find most important. Bilbo is still alive. He is still himself. He still has things he loves and still has the ability to experience the world around him. But something has appeared within him that perhaps was not there before: He feels that he is being stretched too thin. So, being “stretched” does not mean that Bilbo has been destroyed. It shows that he is still enduring, but that his endurance has begun to leave a mark. Being able to endure does not mean being unaffected. A person can endure something for a very long time and still become tired. Someone can continue living almost normally while inwardly feeling that they are being stretched too thin. Bilbo is in precisely that state. And perhaps that is why his next words feel so natural: “I need a holiday, a very long holiday...” I like the way Bilbo says this. He does not try to prove that he can endure more. He simply realizes that he needs to leave. To me, this is a remarkable form of awareness. Bilbo does not wait until he has completely lost himself before recognizing the problem. He realizes that he is being stretched. And from that realization, he wants to step away from the circumstances creating that pressure. Recognizing Your Limit Is Also a Form of Strength If we continue with the image of the balloon, Bilbo has enough elasticity to withstand that pressure for decades. But that elasticity is not infinite. The more it is stretched, the farther it moves from its original state. And what catches my attention most is that Bilbo is still aware enough to recognize this. From this perspective, I see Bilbo’s decision to leave in a different way. He does not leave because he has failed. He leaves because he has recognized his limit. To me, this is much more meaningful than simply saying that Bilbo is “strong” because he was able to possess the Ring for so long. A being can be remarkably resilient and still have limits. And being able to recognize those limits is not weakness. It is awareness. Bilbo does not say: “I can endure more.” He says, in a very different way: “I need a holiday.” Perhaps that simplicity is exactly what makes the line so thought-provoking. He does not need to prove how strong he is. He only needs to be honest about what he is feeling. Why Is the Image of the “Butter” So Sad? That is also why I find Bilbo’s image of the butter so sad. Bilbo is still there. He has not disappeared. He has not been destroyed. But he feels as though he has been spread too thin. The image does not describe a moment of collapse. It describes a process. The burden creates pressure. The pressure forces Bilbo to adapt. That prolonged adaptation makes him feel increasingly stretched. And eventually, he realizes that he cannot continue that way forever. That is what makes the words “I feel thin” so important. “Thin” is not a declaration of weakness. It is a sign that a being has been pulled away from its natural state for too long. And recognizing that opens a choice for Bilbo: To leave. It makes me see Bilbo differently: “Bilbo is not a being that cannot be stretched; he is a being that has endured pressure for a very long time, yet remained aware enough to recognize that his capacity to stretch is not infinite.” And perhaps that is what I like most about this line. Strength is not always about enduring more. Sometimes, strength is knowing that you have endured enough.

🎼🌺Music Love♥️

15,306 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Everyone assumes Trump wants control of the Strait of Hormuz. That may be a complete misread of the strategy. Economic and geopolitical analyst Tom Luongo argues Trump’s real goal is to avoid a failed state in Iran, push for a friendlier government, and get Arab states to manage more of their own security. He says the model is closer to building new regional frameworks for resolving specific conflicts, similar to the kind of structure he believes is emerging around Gaza. His point: Trump is not trying to seize the waterway. He is trying to create a system that can function without permanent U.S. control. Tom Luongo
1:53

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Everyone assumes Trump wants control of the Strait of Hormuz. That may be a complete misread of the strategy. Economic and geopolitical analyst Tom Luongo argues Trump’s real goal is to avoid a failed state in Iran, push for a friendlier government, and get Arab states to manage more of their own security. He says the model is closer to building new regional frameworks for resolving specific conflicts, similar to the kind of structure he believes is emerging around Gaza. His point: Trump is not trying to seize the waterway. He is trying to create a system that can function without permanent U.S. control. Tom Luongo

Mario Nawfal

78,603 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

🇮🇷🇺🇦 What happens when a great power has no clear path to victory, but also no politically acceptable way to admit defeat? That may be the central problem facing Washington in Iran, according to Prof. Glenn Diesen. Diesen argues that Iran has effectively defeated the United States, but Tehran's demands for sanctions relief, unfrozen assets, reconstruction payments and an end to the wider regional wars create a dilemma for Washington: accepting those terms could be politically impossible, while refusing them risks trapping the U.S. in a war it has no obvious way to win. Trump may therefore try to declare victory and walk away, pointing to Iran's supposedly destroyed nuclear capabilities and arguing that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer strategically important. But Iran has leverage. Tehran can make an American withdrawal politically painful while maintaining enough pressure to prevent Washington from simply resetting the conflict and returning later. And this is where Diesen's warning matters. A great power pushed between humiliation and escalation may choose escalation. Iran therefore has to be careful not to push Trump so far that he concludes there is nothing left to lose. Meanwhile, the war is becoming harder to contain. Fighting is spreading through Yemen, with the Houthis striking Saudi-backed targets and reportedly hitting Saudi-linked shipping and infrastructure. Diesen argues that treating these groups simply as Iranian proxies misses the bigger problem: many have their own interests and conflicts that could continue even if Tehran wanted the war to end. The same applies to the emerging Middle Eastern security order. As confidence in permanent American protection declines, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and potentially Egypt are moving toward a new regional security architecture. Diesen sees two possible futures: competing blocs, where states seek security against one another, or an inclusive system that eventually brings Iran, and perhaps even Israel, into the same framework. The first creates another cycle of escalation. The second attempts to make security indivisible, so one country's security does not require another country's permanent insecurity. And then there is Ukraine. Diesen argues that the battlefield is increasingly becoming a war of attrition that Russia is slowly winning. Ukraine faces worsening manpower and ammunition problems, while a shortage of interceptor missiles is allowing Russia to use more air power and increasingly devastating glide bombs. Russia is also expanding attacks against Ukrainian logistics, ports, bridges, warehouses and energy infrastructure, while Ukraine continues striking deeper inside Russia to create pressure for negotiations. But if Moscow sees NATO expansion and Ukraine's role as a Western frontline as an existential threat, hurting Russia may not convince it to compromise. It may convince Russia that it has even more reason to continue fighting. Diesen's conclusion is bleak: both sides want the war to end, but they fundamentally disagree over what ending it means. For Russia, that means Ukrainian neutrality, territorial concessions and a political settlement. For Ukraine and its European backers, an unconditional ceasefire risks freezing the battlefield and giving Kyiv time to rebuild. So the wars in Iran and Ukraine are beginning to reveal the same dangerous pattern. The longer a conflict continues, the harder it becomes to separate victory from survival, and the harder it becomes for either side to back down without believing it is surrendering something existential. When the off-ramp disappears, escalation starts looking less like a choice and more like the only road left. Diesen's final warning was almost an afterthought: let's hope the conflict doesn't spread to Japan. He may have been joking. But these are not particularly reassuring times. Glenn Diesen
33:45

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

Mario Nawfal

244,431 просмотров • 1 месяц назад