Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

The Qatar explosion dropped live as the interview started and former U.S. Intelligence Malcolm Nance was not fazed His read: natural gas fed fire, not a drone strike, probably a pipeline feeding it, and the Qataris immediately killed all cell coverage in the area But the timing, day one...

336,636 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Malcolm Nance just did the math on Trump's "biggest bombing campaign since WWII" line, and it doesn't hold up. His point: no B-52s staged, no mass tanker buildup, tanker fleets already dispersed instead of massing for a real strike. He says he knew by Friday night this wasn't happening; the actual hardware for a serious campaign was never in motion. Desert Storm ran a thousand aircraft at once. Vietnam's Linebacker had a hundred B-52s a day for 6 months straight. Whatever was being prepped this weekend, in Malcolm's view, wasn't in that category. What actually moved the needle, he says, was MBS getting on the phone and telling Trump plainly: we'd rather have a deal than an attack. Malcolm says that moment is a power shift. The Gulf states are now the ones who can actually redirect U.S. military decisions, and Israel found out about the cancellation from a Truth Social post same as everyone else. Not from Washington. Not from an ally briefing. Malcolm's framing of the endgame is the part worth sitting with: there's no version of "going all in" that doesn't mean Marines on the ground in a country 4 times the size of Iraq, and no appetite in Washington for that. Which leaves one road: Trump paying whatever the Gulf states now want to broker an exit, at a much higher price than before he tore up the last deal. If the Gulf states are the ones deciding when this war ends, what's actually left of the leverage anyone thought Washington had? Malcolm Nance

Mario Nawfal

322,251 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

🇺🇲🇮🇷 The nuclear taboo, the one line no administration has crossed since 1945, now becomes something people are willing to say out loud in a strategy meeting? That's what analyst Malcolm Nance is reacting to, after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene posted that nuclear weapons are being discussed in White House strategy meetings on Iran. Malcolm says this matters more than almost anything else in the war. He describes his own time on watch at a national nuclear command post. The briefings built specifically to terrify young service members out of ever thinking a nuclear strike is survivable, let alone usable. The doctrine has held since Hiroshima: no first use, no exceptions, full stop. In his read, even raising the question in a room reveals something wrong with who's in that room. The scenario he says has circulated internally isn't a city-leveling strike. It's a low-yield "demolition" device dropped into Iran's underground enrichment sites, sold internally as something short of a real bomb. Nance rejects that framing outright. He walks through the physics: any detonation, buried or not, throws irradiated material into the stratosphere, where it circulates and comes down globally within days. In food, in water, everywhere, for everyone, not just the target country. His sharpest point is structural, not moral: the presidential authority to authorize this has almost no check built into it. Two men, two keys, one authenticated order; that's the entire chain between a decision and execution. The safeguard he says should exist, a Joint Chiefs chairman refusing the order outright, is the one he's watching for, and hasn't seen yet. Malcolm is clear this is his own alarm, not confirmed policy. But his closing question is the one worth sitting with: If this is being discussed and nobody in that room is willing to say no on the record, who exactly is the check left standing? Thank you Malcolm Nance for our conversation

Mario Nawfal

298,059 Aufrufe • vor 1 Tag