Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The Iran war has turned from a fight about Tehran's nuclear program into a battle for control over the Strait of Hormuz. Washington is trying to prove it can break Iran's grip on shipping through the Strait, while Tehran is just as determined to prove that it can't....

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,885,000 subscribers

299,013 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieNachrichten & Politik
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump says the U.S is going to “hit Iran hard,” while Tehran is warning that from now on, every American attack will be met with a response “dozens of times greater.” That's an extremely dangerous change in the rules of this war. The latest U.S strike was deliberately limited: American forces hit rocket launchers on Larak Island that CENTCOM says were preparing to deploy sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz. Iran didn't respond proportionally; it launched a much larger barrage of missiles and drones toward U.S positions in the region. And that's the part that matters. Earlier in the war, Iran largely calibrated its responses because it still believed there was a deal to be made with Washington. That calculation appears to be disappearing, because Tehran believes America no longer possesses the escalation dominance it had at the beginning of the war. And Iran is now willing to prove it by deliberately responding harder than it gets hit, meaning Trump now faces a brutal dilemma. If he doesn't respond after publicly promising to “hit them hard,” Tehran can portray it as proof that American threats have lost their force. But if he does hit Iran hard, Tehran is explicitly threatening to escalate even more, and warning that no target in the region is beyond its reach. The most dangerous assumption Trump could make now is that the U.S still gets to decide where the escalation ends. Iran's telling him it has a say in that. Brandon Weichert
56:52

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump says the U.S is going to “hit Iran hard,” while Tehran is warning that from now on, every American attack will be met with a response “dozens of times greater.” That's an extremely dangerous change in the rules of this war. The latest U.S strike was deliberately limited: American forces hit rocket launchers on Larak Island that CENTCOM says were preparing to deploy sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz. Iran didn't respond proportionally; it launched a much larger barrage of missiles and drones toward U.S positions in the region. And that's the part that matters. Earlier in the war, Iran largely calibrated its responses because it still believed there was a deal to be made with Washington. That calculation appears to be disappearing, because Tehran believes America no longer possesses the escalation dominance it had at the beginning of the war. And Iran is now willing to prove it by deliberately responding harder than it gets hit, meaning Trump now faces a brutal dilemma. If he doesn't respond after publicly promising to “hit them hard,” Tehran can portray it as proof that American threats have lost their force. But if he does hit Iran hard, Tehran is explicitly threatening to escalate even more, and warning that no target in the region is beyond its reach. The most dangerous assumption Trump could make now is that the U.S still gets to decide where the escalation ends. Iran's telling him it has a say in that. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

336,090 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's immediate objective is simple: get the U.S. out of the Strait of Hormuz without allowing Iran to dictate who passes through it. The problem is that Tehran now sees Hormuz as its leverage. That may be the central problem with Washington's strategy. Economic warfare can avoid a ground invasion and nuclear escalation. But if Iran believes control of Hormuz is essential to its survival, sanctions may only convince Tehran to hold the strait tighter. The war may have moved from missiles to economics. The underlying confrontation hasn't moved an inch. Brandon Weichert
4:03

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's immediate objective is simple: get the U.S. out of the Strait of Hormuz without allowing Iran to dictate who passes through it. The problem is that Tehran now sees Hormuz as its leverage. That may be the central problem with Washington's strategy. Economic warfare can avoid a ground invasion and nuclear escalation. But if Iran believes control of Hormuz is essential to its survival, sanctions may only convince Tehran to hold the strait tighter. The war may have moved from missiles to economics. The underlying confrontation hasn't moved an inch. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

70,863 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump is now trapped in a war he can't win, easily leave, or escalate without falling into Iran's trap America went to war over Tehran's nuclear program, yet months later, U.S Tomahawks are hitting Iranian islands because Washington still can’t force open the Strait of Hormuz. Military analyst Elijah Magnier says Trump has ended up exactly where Iran wants him. The nuclear program has disappeared from the negotiations, so has Iran’s missile program, and even its support for regional allies is no longer the immediate issue. The fight has come down to something much more fundamental: who controls safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. And Elijah argues that's a fight Iran is uniquely equipped to drag out. America can bomb radars, launchers and facilities along Iran’s coast, and it can clear mines and escort tankers. But Iran only needs a few drones, missiles or mines to demonstrate that Washington still cannot guarantee safe navigation. Every time America declares the Strait secure, Tehran gets another opportunity to prove it isn't. Now Trump is reportedly considering periodic strikes, but what will that achieve? Iran already considers itself at war, so more bombing gives Tehran another opportunity to retaliate, disrupt shipping and keep the economic and political cost rising. Unless those bombs can reopen Hormuz and force Tehran to concede, Trump isn't demonstrating that he has an answer. He's showing that he's run out of them. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺
44:32

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump is now trapped in a war he can't win, easily leave, or escalate without falling into Iran's trap America went to war over Tehran's nuclear program, yet months later, U.S Tomahawks are hitting Iranian islands because Washington still can’t force open the Strait of Hormuz. Military analyst Elijah Magnier says Trump has ended up exactly where Iran wants him. The nuclear program has disappeared from the negotiations, so has Iran’s missile program, and even its support for regional allies is no longer the immediate issue. The fight has come down to something much more fundamental: who controls safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. And Elijah argues that's a fight Iran is uniquely equipped to drag out. America can bomb radars, launchers and facilities along Iran’s coast, and it can clear mines and escort tankers. But Iran only needs a few drones, missiles or mines to demonstrate that Washington still cannot guarantee safe navigation. Every time America declares the Strait secure, Tehran gets another opportunity to prove it isn't. Now Trump is reportedly considering periodic strikes, but what will that achieve? Iran already considers itself at war, so more bombing gives Tehran another opportunity to retaliate, disrupt shipping and keep the economic and political cost rising. Unless those bombs can reopen Hormuz and force Tehran to concede, Trump isn't demonstrating that he has an answer. He's showing that he's run out of them. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺

Mario Nawfal

293,646 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The U.S. has struck Iran again. And Glenn Diesen thinks Washington may have just solved one of Tehran’s biggest problems for it. Iran had been debating whether to strike first in the next round of fighting, but doing so risked making Tehran look like the aggressor. Now it doesn't have to. After U.S. strikes on Larak Island, Iran can retaliate while arguing that Washington restarted the shooting war. Diesen says the stranger part is that America's military position hasn't meaningfully improved since the last round. U.S. interceptor stocks remain under pressure, while Iran appears better able to replenish its missiles and drones and improved the power and accuracy of its strikes as the fighting progressed. So what exactly has changed? His answer: perhaps very little. Washington can't win the war on acceptable terms, can't accept Iran's peace demands, and can't comfortably freeze the conflict while Tehran strengthens relations with its neighbors and maintains control over Hormuz. That leaves America reaching for escalation without a convincing endgame. And Diesen argues the latest strike may strengthen Iranian voices calling for a much more dangerous doctrine: Stop allowing Washington to decide when wars start and stop. If the U.S. attacks Iran, it may no longer get to decide when the shooting ends. Glenn Diesen
45:02

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The U.S. has struck Iran again. And Glenn Diesen thinks Washington may have just solved one of Tehran’s biggest problems for it. Iran had been debating whether to strike first in the next round of fighting, but doing so risked making Tehran look like the aggressor. Now it doesn't have to. After U.S. strikes on Larak Island, Iran can retaliate while arguing that Washington restarted the shooting war. Diesen says the stranger part is that America's military position hasn't meaningfully improved since the last round. U.S. interceptor stocks remain under pressure, while Iran appears better able to replenish its missiles and drones and improved the power and accuracy of its strikes as the fighting progressed. So what exactly has changed? His answer: perhaps very little. Washington can't win the war on acceptable terms, can't accept Iran's peace demands, and can't comfortably freeze the conflict while Tehran strengthens relations with its neighbors and maintains control over Hormuz. That leaves America reaching for escalation without a convincing endgame. And Diesen argues the latest strike may strengthen Iranian voices calling for a much more dangerous doctrine: Stop allowing Washington to decide when wars start and stop. If the U.S. attacks Iran, it may no longer get to decide when the shooting ends. Glenn Diesen

Mario Nawfal

319,645 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran is turning Hormuz into the price of ending the war, and the U.S may now face an impossible choice. Shipping through the Strait has reportedly fallen from roughly 130–140 vessels a day before the war to just SIX yesterday, and the positions on both sides appear to be getting further apart. Iran is now tying the full reopening of Hormuz to a much bigger package of demands: End the war and blockade, release frozen Iranian assets, and secure a broader regional ceasefire encompassing Lebanon and Gaza. Only then does the Strait fully reopen. Iran and Oman may be getting closer to agreeing HOW shipping would operate through Hormuz, but that doesn't mean Tehran has agreed to actually reopen it yet. And while the diplomacy drags on, the physical situation is getting worse. Kpler figures suggest oil flows have fallen to around 2.2 million barrels per day, compared with roughly 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transiting daily before the war. Which brings us to what may be the biggest strategic shift of the entire conflict. According to a U.S military intelligence assessment, Iran's strategic priority may increasingly be moving away from its nuclear program, and toward control of Hormuz itself. Think about what that means. For decades, Iran sought deterrence through its nuclear program, ballistic missiles and regional allies. But this war may have accidentally handed Tehran something capable of inflicting immediate economic pain on the entire world: Hormuz. "The Strait of Hormuz IS their nuclear weapon." Not literally as a military deterrent, but economically, the leverage is extraordinary, and that leaves Trump with horrible options. Accept some version of Iran's demands and potentially end the war with Tehran exercising MORE authority over Hormuz than it had before the fighting began. Or attempt to break Iranian control militarily. But the U.S military assessment warns that doing so could be lengthy, costly, and deadly, with no guarantee it would even work. The Iran war may not actually be ending; it may simply be frozen, with both sides waiting for the moment when they think they can win the next round.
57:26

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran is turning Hormuz into the price of ending the war, and the U.S may now face an impossible choice. Shipping through the Strait has reportedly fallen from roughly 130–140 vessels a day before the war to just SIX yesterday, and the positions on both sides appear to be getting further apart. Iran is now tying the full reopening of Hormuz to a much bigger package of demands: End the war and blockade, release frozen Iranian assets, and secure a broader regional ceasefire encompassing Lebanon and Gaza. Only then does the Strait fully reopen. Iran and Oman may be getting closer to agreeing HOW shipping would operate through Hormuz, but that doesn't mean Tehran has agreed to actually reopen it yet. And while the diplomacy drags on, the physical situation is getting worse. Kpler figures suggest oil flows have fallen to around 2.2 million barrels per day, compared with roughly 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products transiting daily before the war. Which brings us to what may be the biggest strategic shift of the entire conflict. According to a U.S military intelligence assessment, Iran's strategic priority may increasingly be moving away from its nuclear program, and toward control of Hormuz itself. Think about what that means. For decades, Iran sought deterrence through its nuclear program, ballistic missiles and regional allies. But this war may have accidentally handed Tehran something capable of inflicting immediate economic pain on the entire world: Hormuz. "The Strait of Hormuz IS their nuclear weapon." Not literally as a military deterrent, but economically, the leverage is extraordinary, and that leaves Trump with horrible options. Accept some version of Iran's demands and potentially end the war with Tehran exercising MORE authority over Hormuz than it had before the fighting began. Or attempt to break Iranian control militarily. But the U.S military assessment warns that doing so could be lengthy, costly, and deadly, with no guarantee it would even work. The Iran war may not actually be ending; it may simply be frozen, with both sides waiting for the moment when they think they can win the next round.

Mario Nawfal

366,811 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump may be making the biggest strategic miscalculation of the war. Geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert believes the White House is assuming one overwhelming show of force will push Iran back to the negotiating table. He thinks the opposite will happen. According to reports discussed in the interview, Washington is weighing a large-scale campaign targeting not only military sites, but potentially Iran's energy infrastructure as well. Brandon believes the logic is simple. Hit Iran hard enough, demonstrate overwhelming American power, then negotiate from a position of strength. He doesn't think Tehran sees it that way. His argument is that Washington is treating Iran like a conventional state that responds primarily to military pressure. Iran, he says, defines legitimacy through resistance. The harder it's hit, the harder it becomes politically for Tehran to compromise. That's why Brandon believes a major U.S. campaign wouldn't be the final round. It would simply be the start of the next one. The U.S. may be able to destroy what it can find. But it can never be certain it found everything. Meanwhile, Iran only needs to keep enough capability intact to continue imposing costs. Brandon believes that asymmetry favors Tehran over time. If Iran refuses to bend, what started as escalation could well become an open-ended war neither side knows how to end. Brandon Weichert
42:29

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump may be making the biggest strategic miscalculation of the war. Geopolitical analyst Brandon Weichert believes the White House is assuming one overwhelming show of force will push Iran back to the negotiating table. He thinks the opposite will happen. According to reports discussed in the interview, Washington is weighing a large-scale campaign targeting not only military sites, but potentially Iran's energy infrastructure as well. Brandon believes the logic is simple. Hit Iran hard enough, demonstrate overwhelming American power, then negotiate from a position of strength. He doesn't think Tehran sees it that way. His argument is that Washington is treating Iran like a conventional state that responds primarily to military pressure. Iran, he says, defines legitimacy through resistance. The harder it's hit, the harder it becomes politically for Tehran to compromise. That's why Brandon believes a major U.S. campaign wouldn't be the final round. It would simply be the start of the next one. The U.S. may be able to destroy what it can find. But it can never be certain it found everything. Meanwhile, Iran only needs to keep enough capability intact to continue imposing costs. Brandon believes that asymmetry favors Tehran over time. If Iran refuses to bend, what started as escalation could well become an open-ended war neither side knows how to end. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

377,798 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump has restarted a war he no longer controls, and Iran intends to make escape painfully difficult Middle East analyst Trita Parsi says Trump believed he could inflict enough military pressure to force Iran back to the negotiating table, then declare victory and end the conflict whenever it became politically convenient. Instead, rather than giving him an easy off-ramp, Iran is trying to make the war so costly that he never thinks of doing it again. That's why Trita believes the economic pressure matters just as much as the missiles, because every additional cost increases the political pain of continuing the conflict. At the heart of the war is the Strait of Hormuz, and Trita argues this isn't really about shipping fees; it's about leverage. Iran believes control of the Strait is its single biggest deterrent against a full-scale American attack. Give that up, and Washington can launch another war with far fewer consequences. That's why he says Tehran is extremely unlikely to compromise on the issue, regardless of the military pressure. His warning is that this creates a dangerous cycle, because every failed attempt to force a breakthrough creates pressure for another escalation. Trita says that's how wars stop being short campaigns and start becoming open-ended conflicts. He puts the chances of the fighting escalating over the next month at more than 80%. Not because either side necessarily wants a forever war, but because both sides now believe backing down today makes an even bigger war tomorrow more likely. Trita Parsi
24:15

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump has restarted a war he no longer controls, and Iran intends to make escape painfully difficult Middle East analyst Trita Parsi says Trump believed he could inflict enough military pressure to force Iran back to the negotiating table, then declare victory and end the conflict whenever it became politically convenient. Instead, rather than giving him an easy off-ramp, Iran is trying to make the war so costly that he never thinks of doing it again. That's why Trita believes the economic pressure matters just as much as the missiles, because every additional cost increases the political pain of continuing the conflict. At the heart of the war is the Strait of Hormuz, and Trita argues this isn't really about shipping fees; it's about leverage. Iran believes control of the Strait is its single biggest deterrent against a full-scale American attack. Give that up, and Washington can launch another war with far fewer consequences. That's why he says Tehran is extremely unlikely to compromise on the issue, regardless of the military pressure. His warning is that this creates a dangerous cycle, because every failed attempt to force a breakthrough creates pressure for another escalation. Trita says that's how wars stop being short campaigns and start becoming open-ended conflicts. He puts the chances of the fighting escalating over the next month at more than 80%. Not because either side necessarily wants a forever war, but because both sides now believe backing down today makes an even bigger war tomorrow more likely. Trita Parsi

Mario Nawfal

280,503 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🇺🇸🇮🇷 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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trita Parsi: America may be backing itself into a forever war with Iran Nobody announces a forever war. They just start talking about “periodic strikes.” Axios reports the U.S. is considering repeatedly hitting Iranian radar, air defenses and anti-ship capabilities to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its ability to threaten shipping through Hormuz. To Trita Parsi, that language gives the game away. If America must bomb Iran every few weeks or months simply to keep the situation manageable, then Washington no longer has a strategy for ending the war. It has a strategy for maintaining it. And the remarkable part is how quickly Washington got here. Barely 10 days ago, the new plan was economic warfare: squeeze Iran, keep the shooting quiet and wait until after the midterms. Now military strikes are back on the table. Parsi calls it “complete strategic disarray.” The bigger danger is that Tehran appears to be reaching its own conclusion. Parsi says Iranian officials increasingly expect a third round of war anyway and are debating whether Iran should strike first rather than once again allowing Washington to choose the timing. Both sides now think they have the advantage. Neither appears interested in compromise. And Parsi says regional leaders increasingly believe the diplomatic path is closed. An off-ramp? Rather two countries arguing over who gets to start the next round. Trita Parsi
25:43

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trita Parsi: America may be backing itself into a forever war with Iran Nobody announces a forever war. They just start talking about “periodic strikes.” Axios reports the U.S. is considering repeatedly hitting Iranian radar, air defenses and anti-ship capabilities to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its ability to threaten shipping through Hormuz. To Trita Parsi, that language gives the game away. If America must bomb Iran every few weeks or months simply to keep the situation manageable, then Washington no longer has a strategy for ending the war. It has a strategy for maintaining it. And the remarkable part is how quickly Washington got here. Barely 10 days ago, the new plan was economic warfare: squeeze Iran, keep the shooting quiet and wait until after the midterms. Now military strikes are back on the table. Parsi calls it “complete strategic disarray.” The bigger danger is that Tehran appears to be reaching its own conclusion. Parsi says Iranian officials increasingly expect a third round of war anyway and are debating whether Iran should strike first rather than once again allowing Washington to choose the timing. Both sides now think they have the advantage. Neither appears interested in compromise. And Parsi says regional leaders increasingly believe the diplomatic path is closed. An off-ramp? Rather two countries arguing over who gets to start the next round. Trita Parsi

Mario Nawfal

286,115 Aufrufe • vor 2 Tagen

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran has reportedly given Washington a new ultimatum: return to diplomacy and lift the naval blockade within “a few weeks,” or Tehran will expand the war. Iran says the previous 60-day MOU deadline is meaningless because Washington violated the agreement before negotiations even began. The new deadline is different. This one is coming from Tehran. And the pressure is already visible. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen to a near standstill, with only five commodity vessels reportedly transiting Saturday and none Sunday, compared with 31 the previous weekend. The dispute at the center of everything is Hormuz. Iran wants control over passage and the ability to charge fees. Washington appears unwilling to accept that, making the Strait the central bargaining chip in the entire conflict. Trump, meanwhile, claims the U.S. has “total control” of Hormuz, says he is communicating with the IRGC, and has threatened Oman if it obstructs efforts to reopen the Strait. The IRGC has publicly denied that any backchannel negotiations with Washington are taking place. That leaves both sides claiming leverage while preparing for another round of escalation. Iran is reportedly shifting from a defensive posture to an offensive one, with officials warning that a failed diplomatic process could bring attacks on Gulf infrastructure, internet cables and other regional targets. The bigger concern is that Tehran appears to be preparing for a long war rather than assuming another ceasefire will hold. Inside Iran, authorities are also tightening restrictions, including proposed criminal penalties for unauthorized contact with foreign media, foreign-funded organizations and scientific institutions. Meanwhile, the U.S. is dealing with growing questions about military morale, political constraints and whether Washington actually has a viable off-ramp. The core problem is becoming increasingly difficult to escape: Iran believes Washington will eventually try to escalate again. Washington cannot easily accept Iran gaining control over Hormuz. And neither side appears willing to concede the point that matters most. The next few weeks could determine whether this remains a standoff or becomes the next phase of the war. Brandon Weichert
50:20

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Iran has reportedly given Washington a new ultimatum: return to diplomacy and lift the naval blockade within “a few weeks,” or Tehran will expand the war. Iran says the previous 60-day MOU deadline is meaningless because Washington violated the agreement before negotiations even began. The new deadline is different. This one is coming from Tehran. And the pressure is already visible. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen to a near standstill, with only five commodity vessels reportedly transiting Saturday and none Sunday, compared with 31 the previous weekend. The dispute at the center of everything is Hormuz. Iran wants control over passage and the ability to charge fees. Washington appears unwilling to accept that, making the Strait the central bargaining chip in the entire conflict. Trump, meanwhile, claims the U.S. has “total control” of Hormuz, says he is communicating with the IRGC, and has threatened Oman if it obstructs efforts to reopen the Strait. The IRGC has publicly denied that any backchannel negotiations with Washington are taking place. That leaves both sides claiming leverage while preparing for another round of escalation. Iran is reportedly shifting from a defensive posture to an offensive one, with officials warning that a failed diplomatic process could bring attacks on Gulf infrastructure, internet cables and other regional targets. The bigger concern is that Tehran appears to be preparing for a long war rather than assuming another ceasefire will hold. Inside Iran, authorities are also tightening restrictions, including proposed criminal penalties for unauthorized contact with foreign media, foreign-funded organizations and scientific institutions. Meanwhile, the U.S. is dealing with growing questions about military morale, political constraints and whether Washington actually has a viable off-ramp. The core problem is becoming increasingly difficult to escape: Iran believes Washington will eventually try to escalate again. Washington cannot easily accept Iran gaining control over Hormuz. And neither side appears willing to concede the point that matters most. The next few weeks could determine whether this remains a standoff or becomes the next phase of the war. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

299,393 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The U.S has just introduced a new rule in its war with Iran: A tanker for a tanker. If Iran attacks a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S will retaliate by hitting an Iranian tanker, and Washington has already done it. Two Iranian government tankers were struck in port this week, the first time the U.S has targeted Iranian vessels specifically in retaliation for attacks on shipping rather than to enforce its blockade. On the surface, this looks like escalation, but something stranger is happening. The enormous exchanges earlier in the war have gradually diminished into a much more limited fight centred almost entirely on Hormuz. No massive bombing campaign, and no immediate push toward regime change. Instead, both sides appear to be developing rules for an open-ended war neither is willing to end. And the underlying problem hasn't changed: Washington needs Hormuz reliably open, but Tehran only needs to prove it can still make it dangerous. Shipping traffic remains far below normal, and the IRGC responded to the latest U.S strikes by warning they would only “tighten the lock” on the Strait. So this war may actually be de-escalating in intensity while becoming more permanent in structure. That's the danger of a tanker for a tanker. It doesn't provide a way out of the war; instead, it creates rules for staying in it. Brandon Weichert
58:22

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The U.S has just introduced a new rule in its war with Iran: A tanker for a tanker. If Iran attacks a commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S will retaliate by hitting an Iranian tanker, and Washington has already done it. Two Iranian government tankers were struck in port this week, the first time the U.S has targeted Iranian vessels specifically in retaliation for attacks on shipping rather than to enforce its blockade. On the surface, this looks like escalation, but something stranger is happening. The enormous exchanges earlier in the war have gradually diminished into a much more limited fight centred almost entirely on Hormuz. No massive bombing campaign, and no immediate push toward regime change. Instead, both sides appear to be developing rules for an open-ended war neither is willing to end. And the underlying problem hasn't changed: Washington needs Hormuz reliably open, but Tehran only needs to prove it can still make it dangerous. Shipping traffic remains far below normal, and the IRGC responded to the latest U.S strikes by warning they would only “tighten the lock” on the Strait. So this war may actually be de-escalating in intensity while becoming more permanent in structure. That's the danger of a tanker for a tanker. It doesn't provide a way out of the war; instead, it creates rules for staying in it. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

278,132 Aufrufe • vor 15 Stunden

🇺🇸🇮🇷⚡️ Donald Trump says he now considers the Strait of Hormuz “American territory,” while acknowledging that Washington faces a more basic problem in dealing with Iran: figuring out who it can actually negotiate with. Trump reiterated his claim over the strategic waterway during remarks on Friday. 🗣️ “I view the Strait of Hormuz as American territory right now. It’s American territory,” Trump said. Turning to Iran’s leadership, he added that one of his biggest problems is not knowing whom to speak with, joking that “nobody wants to be president” in Iran and that potential candidates keep saying they do not want the job. The remarks underline Washington’s increasingly aggressive posture over Hormuz. Trump is portraying U.S. military control of shipping through the strait as a strategic victory while simultaneously signaling that the political channel with Tehran is effectively broken. With negotiations stalled and both sides continuing to pressure maritime traffic, Hormuz remains one of the central points determining whether the conflict moves toward an agreement or another round of escalation. See the latest updates with us: Visioner
0:23

🇺🇸🇮🇷⚡️ Donald Trump says he now considers the Strait of Hormuz “American territory,” while acknowledging that Washington faces a more basic problem in dealing with Iran: figuring out who it can actually negotiate with. Trump reiterated his claim over the strategic waterway during remarks on Friday. 🗣️ “I view the Strait of Hormuz as American territory right now. It’s American territory,” Trump said. Turning to Iran’s leadership, he added that one of his biggest problems is not knowing whom to speak with, joking that “nobody wants to be president” in Iran and that potential candidates keep saying they do not want the job. The remarks underline Washington’s increasingly aggressive posture over Hormuz. Trump is portraying U.S. military control of shipping through the strait as a strategic victory while simultaneously signaling that the political channel with Tehran is effectively broken. With negotiations stalled and both sides continuing to pressure maritime traffic, Hormuz remains one of the central points determining whether the conflict moves toward an agreement or another round of escalation. See the latest updates with us: Visioner

Visioner

12,271 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇷 America isn't fighting Iran over the Strait of Hormuz; it's fighting to stop Tehran from proving that U.S. control of the Middle East can be broken. Most people still think this war is about ships, oil, or transit fees, but military and political analyst Elijah Magnier says it stopped being about that a long time ago. According to him, Washington believed it could strip Iran of its greatest source of leverage by moving Gulf shipping away from the Iranian-controlled channel and through Oman instead. He says they fundamentally misunderstood how Iran thinks. Tehran could negotiate over uranium enrichment, frozen assets, and it could even tolerate parts of the Memorandum of Understanding being chipped away, but Hormuz was never negotiable. For twenty years, Iran lived under sanctions while the rest of the world largely carried on as normal. Now, for the first time, Tehran has a way to make everyone else feel the consequences too. Its message is simple: If we cannot export our oil normally, then nobody else in the Gulf will either. That is why Elijah believes this war has become much bigger than a dispute over a shipping lane; the U.S is now fighting for its reputation. Because if Iran proves that it can defy Washington, absorb U.S military power and still dictate the terms of navigation through one of the world's most important chokepoints, every American ally and adversary will draw the same conclusion. U.S dominance is over. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺
43:35

🇺🇸🇮🇷 America isn't fighting Iran over the Strait of Hormuz; it's fighting to stop Tehran from proving that U.S. control of the Middle East can be broken. Most people still think this war is about ships, oil, or transit fees, but military and political analyst Elijah Magnier says it stopped being about that a long time ago. According to him, Washington believed it could strip Iran of its greatest source of leverage by moving Gulf shipping away from the Iranian-controlled channel and through Oman instead. He says they fundamentally misunderstood how Iran thinks. Tehran could negotiate over uranium enrichment, frozen assets, and it could even tolerate parts of the Memorandum of Understanding being chipped away, but Hormuz was never negotiable. For twenty years, Iran lived under sanctions while the rest of the world largely carried on as normal. Now, for the first time, Tehran has a way to make everyone else feel the consequences too. Its message is simple: If we cannot export our oil normally, then nobody else in the Gulf will either. That is why Elijah believes this war has become much bigger than a dispute over a shipping lane; the U.S is now fighting for its reputation. Because if Iran proves that it can defy Washington, absorb U.S military power and still dictate the terms of navigation through one of the world's most important chokepoints, every American ally and adversary will draw the same conclusion. U.S dominance is over. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺

Mario Nawfal

380,449 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

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

NSTRIKE

19,620 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The biggest mistake Washington may be making is assuming Iran is running out of options. According to Prof. Robert Pape, Tehran believes it has already solved the central military problem of this war. Not because it can defeat America, but because it believes the U.S can't achieve its objective. Trump's goal is simple: reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore normal shipping. The only problem is that Iran can launch drones capable of striking ships from an area larger than California. Much of it is mountainous, filled with tunnels, valleys and concealed launch sites. It's like trying to find someone in an area equivalent to 11,000 Manhattans. Iran doesn't need thousands of drones to survive; it only needs enough to keep attacking ships. That's why Prof. Pape believes Trump can't simply bomb his way to reopening Hormuz before the midterms, and probably not even before January. And he says Tehran knows it, which changes everything. If Iran believes Washington has no realistic military solution, why would it rush into negotiations? Instead, political scientist Prof. Pape believes Tehran will try to maximise its leverage by keeping pressure on global shipping, energy markets, and the U.S economy. His warning is that Iran is no longer simply trying to survive; it's trying to convince every future American president that attacking them carries an unacceptable economic and political price. Robert A. Pape
45:43

🇺🇸🇮🇷 The biggest mistake Washington may be making is assuming Iran is running out of options. According to Prof. Robert Pape, Tehran believes it has already solved the central military problem of this war. Not because it can defeat America, but because it believes the U.S can't achieve its objective. Trump's goal is simple: reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore normal shipping. The only problem is that Iran can launch drones capable of striking ships from an area larger than California. Much of it is mountainous, filled with tunnels, valleys and concealed launch sites. It's like trying to find someone in an area equivalent to 11,000 Manhattans. Iran doesn't need thousands of drones to survive; it only needs enough to keep attacking ships. That's why Prof. Pape believes Trump can't simply bomb his way to reopening Hormuz before the midterms, and probably not even before January. And he says Tehran knows it, which changes everything. If Iran believes Washington has no realistic military solution, why would it rush into negotiations? Instead, political scientist Prof. Pape believes Tehran will try to maximise its leverage by keeping pressure on global shipping, energy markets, and the U.S economy. His warning is that Iran is no longer simply trying to survive; it's trying to convince every future American president that attacking them carries an unacceptable economic and political price. Robert A. Pape

Mario Nawfal

306,593 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump is demanding reparations from Iran while Tehran is increasingly concluding there is no point negotiating with him at all. And while Washington waits for Tehran to crack, the Middle East is quietly building a security order designed to rely less on America. Trump told Axios that Washington is only "semi-negotiating" with Tehran and is essentially waiting for its economy to implode. Iran's currency has collapsed, inflation is crushing the country, and Trump thinks this pressure will eventually force Tehran to blink. There’s just one problem: Iran appears increasingly willing to wait him out. Tehran has already demonstrated that it can absorb enormous military and economic punishment without collapsing. And if Iranian leaders conclude Trump cannot be trusted to honour an agreement anyway, why make major concessions to an administration that will be gone in a few years? That creates a potentially dangerous stalemate, and Hormuz sits right in the middle. Trump may ultimately be prepared to walk away without meaningful concessions on the nuclear issue if he can just get the Strait properly reopened. Iran, however, is discussing a dramatically different future for Hormuz; one where Tehran decides which vessels can transit, hostile states face restrictions and violations can trigger fees or penalties. In other words: Trump wants the old Strait back, but Iran appears increasingly determined that version of it no longer exists. And despite his insistence that the economic pressure is working, the underlying energy problem hasn't disappeared. America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve is still being drawn down, China is also returning to the oil market after months of reduced buying, and so the clock isn't only ticking on Tehran, it's ticking on Washington too. And underneath all of this, something potentially much bigger is happening. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan are building a new defence partnership. Israel is openly alarmed, while Iran, surprisingly, is welcoming it. Tehran's foreign ministry now describes the pact as evidence that regional countries have realised they can no longer rely on the U.S and other outside powers to guarantee their security. That may ultimately be the biggest story here. America spent decades building a Middle Eastern security system with Washington at its centre. Instead, the region may now be moving in the opposite direction. Brandon Weichert
49:02

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump is demanding reparations from Iran while Tehran is increasingly concluding there is no point negotiating with him at all. And while Washington waits for Tehran to crack, the Middle East is quietly building a security order designed to rely less on America. Trump told Axios that Washington is only "semi-negotiating" with Tehran and is essentially waiting for its economy to implode. Iran's currency has collapsed, inflation is crushing the country, and Trump thinks this pressure will eventually force Tehran to blink. There’s just one problem: Iran appears increasingly willing to wait him out. Tehran has already demonstrated that it can absorb enormous military and economic punishment without collapsing. And if Iranian leaders conclude Trump cannot be trusted to honour an agreement anyway, why make major concessions to an administration that will be gone in a few years? That creates a potentially dangerous stalemate, and Hormuz sits right in the middle. Trump may ultimately be prepared to walk away without meaningful concessions on the nuclear issue if he can just get the Strait properly reopened. Iran, however, is discussing a dramatically different future for Hormuz; one where Tehran decides which vessels can transit, hostile states face restrictions and violations can trigger fees or penalties. In other words: Trump wants the old Strait back, but Iran appears increasingly determined that version of it no longer exists. And despite his insistence that the economic pressure is working, the underlying energy problem hasn't disappeared. America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve is still being drawn down, China is also returning to the oil market after months of reduced buying, and so the clock isn't only ticking on Tehran, it's ticking on Washington too. And underneath all of this, something potentially much bigger is happening. Saudi Arabia, Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan are building a new defence partnership. Israel is openly alarmed, while Iran, surprisingly, is welcoming it. Tehran's foreign ministry now describes the pact as evidence that regional countries have realised they can no longer rely on the U.S and other outside powers to guarantee their security. That may ultimately be the biggest story here. America spent decades building a Middle Eastern security system with Washington at its centre. Instead, the region may now be moving in the opposite direction. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

297,253 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

On both sides of the US-Iran war, none of what's being claimed is confirmed. In fact, both sides are telling contradictory stories. It seems impossible to know what's true. So what DO we know? 1. Before the war, Iran did NOT control the Strait. Traffic was open to any vessel under any flag. 2. Then, just as many warned would happen, Iran closed the Strait as soon as US-Israeli forces began their bombing campaign. 3. Now, whether the US likes it or not, the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Iran. So how can Trump possibly claim victory after the war if the Strait still belongs to Tehran? And how will Iran respond if their only two options are to: a.) attack a US Navy vessel and risk war again; or b.) back down and show the whole world that the US is still in charge? All of this leaves us with the biggest question: Who will blink first?
4:27

On both sides of the US-Iran war, none of what's being claimed is confirmed. In fact, both sides are telling contradictory stories. It seems impossible to know what's true. So what DO we know? 1. Before the war, Iran did NOT control the Strait. Traffic was open to any vessel under any flag. 2. Then, just as many warned would happen, Iran closed the Strait as soon as US-Israeli forces began their bombing campaign. 3. Now, whether the US likes it or not, the Strait of Hormuz belongs to Iran. So how can Trump possibly claim victory after the war if the Strait still belongs to Tehran? And how will Iran respond if their only two options are to: a.) attack a US Navy vessel and risk war again; or b.) back down and show the whole world that the US is still in charge? All of this leaves us with the biggest question: Who will blink first?

Ben Swann

14,956 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Military and political analyst Elijah Magnier says the clearest sign the U.S lost the Iran war is that nobody is talking about Tehran's nuclear program anymore; they're fighting over the Strait of Hormuz. America went into this focused on Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missiles, and regional proxies. Now Trump is arguing about who gets to control Hormuz, and Elijah thinks that tells you everything about how badly the original strategy failed. Iran's missile programme is still operational, its nuclear programme has been pushed into future negotiations, and its regional proxies remain part of Tehran's strategic calculations. Yet Washington's attention is now almost entirely consumed by a source of Iranian leverage that barely existed before the war: Hormuz. Elijah says Iran has effectively pulled off a strategic sleight of hand. For years, the world obsessed over Tehran's nuclear programme while Iran quietly built an enormous missile arsenal. Those missiles eventually gave Iran the ability to absorb American and Israeli attacks and continue retaliating across the region. Now he thinks they're doing it again. Everyone is staring at the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran is rebuilding missiles, maintaining its regional relationships, and buying time on the nuclear issue. Trump even briefly proposed charging ships a 20% fee to pass through the Strait. That lasted barely 24 hours before he replaced it with demands for massive Gulf investment in America. To Elijah, the whole episode exposed something much deeper. Washington says this is about freedom of navigation. But Trump accused Iran of monetizing Hormuz, then immediately tried to monetize it himself. Suddenly, the argument wasn't whether the Strait should be used as leverage; it was who gets to control it and collect the money, and Iran jumped on the contradiction immediately. Elijah's argument is that Trump has trapped himself. He entered the war determined to strip Iran of its leverage, but instead, he's handed Tehran a weapon it didn't have before. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺
51:13

Military and political analyst Elijah Magnier says the clearest sign the U.S lost the Iran war is that nobody is talking about Tehran's nuclear program anymore; they're fighting over the Strait of Hormuz. America went into this focused on Iran's nuclear program, its ballistic missiles, and regional proxies. Now Trump is arguing about who gets to control Hormuz, and Elijah thinks that tells you everything about how badly the original strategy failed. Iran's missile programme is still operational, its nuclear programme has been pushed into future negotiations, and its regional proxies remain part of Tehran's strategic calculations. Yet Washington's attention is now almost entirely consumed by a source of Iranian leverage that barely existed before the war: Hormuz. Elijah says Iran has effectively pulled off a strategic sleight of hand. For years, the world obsessed over Tehran's nuclear programme while Iran quietly built an enormous missile arsenal. Those missiles eventually gave Iran the ability to absorb American and Israeli attacks and continue retaliating across the region. Now he thinks they're doing it again. Everyone is staring at the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran is rebuilding missiles, maintaining its regional relationships, and buying time on the nuclear issue. Trump even briefly proposed charging ships a 20% fee to pass through the Strait. That lasted barely 24 hours before he replaced it with demands for massive Gulf investment in America. To Elijah, the whole episode exposed something much deeper. Washington says this is about freedom of navigation. But Trump accused Iran of monetizing Hormuz, then immediately tried to monetize it himself. Suddenly, the argument wasn't whether the Strait should be used as leverage; it was who gets to control it and collect the money, and Iran jumped on the contradiction immediately. Elijah's argument is that Trump has trapped himself. He entered the war determined to strip Iran of its leverage, but instead, he's handed Tehran a weapon it didn't have before. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺

Mario Nawfal

317,382 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

JUST IN 🇮🇷🇺🇸: U.S. and Iranian Negotiations hit a BIG WALL, The Strait of Hormuz Iran stressed the Strait of Hormuz, won't return to its pre-war status, and a new transit protocol must be established. The U.S. wants to return to what it was before the war. The 40-day War on Iran gave them a nuke, the Strait of Hormuz, and they will not give it up! This was a problem created by Netanyahu lying and starting this war on Iran and the world is paying the price. Thanks again Bibi...
3:28

JUST IN 🇮🇷🇺🇸: U.S. and Iranian Negotiations hit a BIG WALL, The Strait of Hormuz Iran stressed the Strait of Hormuz, won't return to its pre-war status, and a new transit protocol must be established. The U.S. wants to return to what it was before the war. The 40-day War on Iran gave them a nuke, the Strait of Hormuz, and they will not give it up! This was a problem created by Netanyahu lying and starting this war on Iran and the world is paying the price. Thanks again Bibi...

Ryan Rozbiani

147,375 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Professor Stephen Walt says Trump restarted the Iran war without changing a single thing that caused America to lose the first round. The bombing failed before, Iran still controls the same leverage, and Tehran remains willing to endure more pain than Washington. Yet Trump has returned to the same strategy, apparently expecting surrender this time. Prof. Walt says that's the central flaw. The first bombing campaign didn't force Iran to capitulate; instead, the U.S ended up signing the MoU because the economic consequences of the war were becoming too severe to ignore. It wasn't a good agreement from Washington's perspective; it was full of ambiguities, but it stopped the bleeding. Then, according to Prof. Walt, the Trump administration tried to quietly work around one of the agreement's most important provisions: Article Five. The part dealing with Iran's role in managing access to the Strait of Hormuz. The administration began encouraging ships to use the Omani route, as far from Iranian waters as possible. Iran saw that as a direct attempt to undermine the agreement and, more importantly, strip away what had become its greatest source of leverage. So it attacked shipping, America bombed back, and suddenly everyone was right back where they started. America is fighting a war of choice; Iran is fighting what it believes is a war for survival. If Tehran believes the objective is regime change, then almost any sacrifice becomes worth making. That's why Prof. Walt doesn't expect Iran to suddenly cave simply because the bombing has resumed. Trump can still walk away from the war, but to do so means accepting that the U.S will be in a worse position than before it began. When you start an unnecessary war, and it goes badly, you don't get to negotiate from a position of strength; you negotiate from the position you've been left with. And Prof. Walt thinks the sooner Washington accepts that, the sooner this war has a chance of ending. Stephen Walt
21:11

Professor Stephen Walt says Trump restarted the Iran war without changing a single thing that caused America to lose the first round. The bombing failed before, Iran still controls the same leverage, and Tehran remains willing to endure more pain than Washington. Yet Trump has returned to the same strategy, apparently expecting surrender this time. Prof. Walt says that's the central flaw. The first bombing campaign didn't force Iran to capitulate; instead, the U.S ended up signing the MoU because the economic consequences of the war were becoming too severe to ignore. It wasn't a good agreement from Washington's perspective; it was full of ambiguities, but it stopped the bleeding. Then, according to Prof. Walt, the Trump administration tried to quietly work around one of the agreement's most important provisions: Article Five. The part dealing with Iran's role in managing access to the Strait of Hormuz. The administration began encouraging ships to use the Omani route, as far from Iranian waters as possible. Iran saw that as a direct attempt to undermine the agreement and, more importantly, strip away what had become its greatest source of leverage. So it attacked shipping, America bombed back, and suddenly everyone was right back where they started. America is fighting a war of choice; Iran is fighting what it believes is a war for survival. If Tehran believes the objective is regime change, then almost any sacrifice becomes worth making. That's why Prof. Walt doesn't expect Iran to suddenly cave simply because the bombing has resumed. Trump can still walk away from the war, but to do so means accepting that the U.S will be in a worse position than before it began. When you start an unnecessary war, and it goes badly, you don't get to negotiate from a position of strength; you negotiate from the position you've been left with. And Prof. Walt thinks the sooner Washington accepts that, the sooner this war has a chance of ending. Stephen Walt

Mario Nawfal

265,657 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat