Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump remains trapped because he still refuses to accept how much leverage Iran possesses. He still thinks overwhelming American power will eventually force Tehran to give in, and political scientist Ian Bremmer says that's the mistake keeping this war alive. Instead, Iran has shown it can keep raising...

MarioNawfal's profile picture

Mario Nawfal

3,892,703 subscribers

380,968 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

EducationNews & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Neither America nor Iran is actually trying to win this war. 6 months into the Iran war, Ian Bremmer sees something strange beneath all the escalation: Restraint. Iran has not launched major attacks on critical Gulf infrastructure. The U.S. has not sent ground troops, attacked Kharg Island, resumed leadership assassinations or unleashed the full economic campaign threatened against countries still dealing with Tehran. Bremmer calls what is happening instead “price discovery.” Washington and Tehran want incompatible outcomes in the Strait of Hormuz, but both are probing for how much pain the other side can absorb. So they escalate just enough to demonstrate leverage, while trying not to trigger the regional war neither side appears to want. That is why Bremmer remains less worried about a sudden massive escalation than many other analysts. “Neither the Iranians nor the Americans are actually trying to win. They're trying to avoid losing.” That distinction explains a lot. Iran keeps enough pressure on shipping and regional infrastructure to preserve leverage. Washington keeps enough military and economic pressure on Iran to deny Tehran control of the outcome. Neither can force the other to surrender. Neither wants to pay the price of trying. So the war continues, not because either side sees a clear path to victory, but because neither has yet found an acceptable way to lose. ian bremmer
24:43

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Neither America nor Iran is actually trying to win this war. 6 months into the Iran war, Ian Bremmer sees something strange beneath all the escalation: Restraint. Iran has not launched major attacks on critical Gulf infrastructure. The U.S. has not sent ground troops, attacked Kharg Island, resumed leadership assassinations or unleashed the full economic campaign threatened against countries still dealing with Tehran. Bremmer calls what is happening instead “price discovery.” Washington and Tehran want incompatible outcomes in the Strait of Hormuz, but both are probing for how much pain the other side can absorb. So they escalate just enough to demonstrate leverage, while trying not to trigger the regional war neither side appears to want. That is why Bremmer remains less worried about a sudden massive escalation than many other analysts. “Neither the Iranians nor the Americans are actually trying to win. They're trying to avoid losing.” That distinction explains a lot. Iran keeps enough pressure on shipping and regional infrastructure to preserve leverage. Washington keeps enough military and economic pressure on Iran to deny Tehran control of the outcome. Neither can force the other to surrender. Neither wants to pay the price of trying. So the war continues, not because either side sees a clear path to victory, but because neither has yet found an acceptable way to lose. ian bremmer

Mario Nawfal

347,329 views • 12 days ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 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

306,985 views • 2 months ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 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

287,770 views • 2 months ago

🇺🇸 Trump blamed dead American soldiers on local partners. Americans operate those defenses. Ian Bremmer points to the moment that offended the room: sitting with Lebanon's president, Trump explained the Jordan base deaths by saying local partners don't run US defenses well. Except American soldiers operate the air defenses in Jordan themselves. Then came the post comparing how few Americans died versus other wars. Ian says the understating is deliberate. Downplay the casualties, and you never have to answer them, because Trump genuinely doesn't want all-out war. The problem is Tehran knows it, and as long as Iran believes escalation carries limited consequences, the ships keep burning and the economic bill keeps growing. ian bremmer
4:43

🇺🇸 Trump blamed dead American soldiers on local partners. Americans operate those defenses. Ian Bremmer points to the moment that offended the room: sitting with Lebanon's president, Trump explained the Jordan base deaths by saying local partners don't run US defenses well. Except American soldiers operate the air defenses in Jordan themselves. Then came the post comparing how few Americans died versus other wars. Ian says the understating is deliberate. Downplay the casualties, and you never have to answer them, because Trump genuinely doesn't want all-out war. The problem is Tehran knows it, and as long as Iran believes escalation carries limited consequences, the ships keep burning and the economic bill keeps growing. ian bremmer

Mario Nawfal

45,828 views • 2 months ago

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 views • 2 months ago

🚨🇮🇷 IRAN’S STRATEGY: FORCING THE AMERICANS DOWN The Iranian regime understands they are militarily weaker, but they are betting on their "leverage to disrupt" the global economy. Ian Bremmer explains that by holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, Tehran believes they can force a U.S. retreat. The political scientist and author warns that while Trump seeks an off-ramp, his lack of clearly articulated war goals makes the situation "unconscionable." Bremmer emphasizes that as long as drone strikes continue, the leverage remains firmly with the disruptors. ian bremmer
12:04

🚨🇮🇷 IRAN’S STRATEGY: FORCING THE AMERICANS DOWN The Iranian regime understands they are militarily weaker, but they are betting on their "leverage to disrupt" the global economy. Ian Bremmer explains that by holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, Tehran believes they can force a U.S. retreat. The political scientist and author warns that while Trump seeks an off-ramp, his lack of clearly articulated war goals makes the situation "unconscionable." Bremmer emphasizes that as long as drone strikes continue, the leverage remains firmly with the disruptors. ian bremmer

Mario Nawfal

30,913 views • 6 months ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump’s real problem isn’t finding an off-ramp; it’s finding one that doesn’t look like he lost the Iran war He could end it tomorrow, but what happens the morning after, when Trump has to explain why Iran is still standing, Tehran effectively controls the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S military failed to impose Washington's will? Scott Horton believes Trump has already had multiple opportunities to declare victory and walk away, but every time, Washington found another reason it couldn't leave. Every additional objective made the eventual exit harder, because now the consequences of the war are much bigger than Iran's nuclear facilities. And Scott argues decades of U.S policy intended to weaken Tehran have repeatedly achieved the opposite. George W. Bush destroyed Saddam Hussein, Iran's greatest regional enemy, and Iraq subsequently moved deeper into Tehran's orbit, and the Houthis emerged as a formidable regional force. Now Trump has done something Scott thinks may be even more damaging: He tested the assumption of overwhelming U.S military power against Iran and exposed its limits. And that's why walking away becomes so politically difficult. Leaving doesn't just mean ending a war; it means acknowledging that the old order isn't coming back. And the longer Trump fights to avoid being remembered as the president who lost the Iran war, the greater the risk he becomes the president remembered for something much worse. Scott Horton
59:33

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump’s real problem isn’t finding an off-ramp; it’s finding one that doesn’t look like he lost the Iran war He could end it tomorrow, but what happens the morning after, when Trump has to explain why Iran is still standing, Tehran effectively controls the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S military failed to impose Washington's will? Scott Horton believes Trump has already had multiple opportunities to declare victory and walk away, but every time, Washington found another reason it couldn't leave. Every additional objective made the eventual exit harder, because now the consequences of the war are much bigger than Iran's nuclear facilities. And Scott argues decades of U.S policy intended to weaken Tehran have repeatedly achieved the opposite. George W. Bush destroyed Saddam Hussein, Iran's greatest regional enemy, and Iraq subsequently moved deeper into Tehran's orbit, and the Houthis emerged as a formidable regional force. Now Trump has done something Scott thinks may be even more damaging: He tested the assumption of overwhelming U.S military power against Iran and exposed its limits. And that's why walking away becomes so politically difficult. Leaving doesn't just mean ending a war; it means acknowledging that the old order isn't coming back. And the longer Trump fights to avoid being remembered as the president who lost the Iran war, the greater the risk he becomes the president remembered for something much worse. Scott Horton

Mario Nawfal

233,534 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump and Vance have repeatedly suggested the Iran war could end after the midterms. Ian Bremmer doesn’t think that reflects some hidden diplomatic breakthrough. His argument: promising an endpoint after November pushes the reckoning beyond an election increasingly shaped by high fuel prices and a war now stretching beyond six months. Bremmer also sees a deeper political danger for Trump: part of his appeal was precisely that he would keep America out of another prolonged Middle Eastern war. The awkward question is no longer why it hasn’t ended. It’s what actually changes the morning after the midterms. ian bremmer
2:37

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump and Vance have repeatedly suggested the Iran war could end after the midterms. Ian Bremmer doesn’t think that reflects some hidden diplomatic breakthrough. His argument: promising an endpoint after November pushes the reckoning beyond an election increasingly shaped by high fuel prices and a war now stretching beyond six months. Bremmer also sees a deeper political danger for Trump: part of his appeal was precisely that he would keep America out of another prolonged Middle Eastern war. The awkward question is no longer why it hasn’t ended. It’s what actually changes the morning after the midterms. ian bremmer

Mario Nawfal

67,027 views • 12 days ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 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

339,651 views • 29 days ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump already fought this exact war against China... He lost. Ian Bremmer says forget Iraq or Vietnam, the real precedent is the tariff war. Trump hit Beijing expecting capitulation, China shut down the critical minerals supply chain, American factories faced going dark, and Trump backed down into engagement: "When he hits them hard, they hit back. The difference here is that Trump does not yet believe or accept that the Iranians really have far more leverage over the outcome than he is prepared to understand and accept." Two sides who agree on their relative strength negotiate. Two sides who don't keep fighting, and that disagreement is the war now. ian bremmer
2:57

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump already fought this exact war against China... He lost. Ian Bremmer says forget Iraq or Vietnam, the real precedent is the tariff war. Trump hit Beijing expecting capitulation, China shut down the critical minerals supply chain, American factories faced going dark, and Trump backed down into engagement: "When he hits them hard, they hit back. The difference here is that Trump does not yet believe or accept that the Iranians really have far more leverage over the outcome than he is prepared to understand and accept." Two sides who agree on their relative strength negotiate. Two sides who don't keep fighting, and that disagreement is the war now. ian bremmer

Mario Nawfal

131,862 views • 2 months ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 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

296,535 views • 28 days ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump needs Iran to give him a face-saving victory, but they've deliberately decided to deny him one. Trump expected this war to end within weeks. Instead, months later, he's venting at aides, insulting Iranian leaders, and growing increasingly frustrated that the war refuses to end. Military analyst Elijah Magnier says that's because Trump fundamentally misunderstood Iran from the very beginning. In his view, every insult, every new strike, and every failed ultimatum only convinces Tehran that giving Trump a face-saving victory would guarantee another war in the future. So they've made a strategic decision: Don't give him the ladder. That's why Elijah believes Tehran rejected another temporary ceasefire. From the Iranian perspective, Trump launched the war, walked away from previous commitments, kept sanctions in place, and tried to change the facts on the ground while negotiations were supposedly continuing. Why help him now? Elijah says the real battle isn't over missiles; it's over the Strait of Hormuz. Not because Iran just wants to collect shipping fees, but because Hormuz has become the leverage that can force Washington to negotiate issues it has refused to address for decades: Sanctions, frozen Iranian assets, and America's wider military role in the region. Until those issues are addressed, Elijah believes Iran has no incentive to surrender its strongest bargaining chip. And right now, Tehran has made one thing absolutely clear: It has no intention of rescuing Trump from the war he chose to start. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺
49:27

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump needs Iran to give him a face-saving victory, but they've deliberately decided to deny him one. Trump expected this war to end within weeks. Instead, months later, he's venting at aides, insulting Iranian leaders, and growing increasingly frustrated that the war refuses to end. Military analyst Elijah Magnier says that's because Trump fundamentally misunderstood Iran from the very beginning. In his view, every insult, every new strike, and every failed ultimatum only convinces Tehran that giving Trump a face-saving victory would guarantee another war in the future. So they've made a strategic decision: Don't give him the ladder. That's why Elijah believes Tehran rejected another temporary ceasefire. From the Iranian perspective, Trump launched the war, walked away from previous commitments, kept sanctions in place, and tried to change the facts on the ground while negotiations were supposedly continuing. Why help him now? Elijah says the real battle isn't over missiles; it's over the Strait of Hormuz. Not because Iran just wants to collect shipping fees, but because Hormuz has become the leverage that can force Washington to negotiate issues it has refused to address for decades: Sanctions, frozen Iranian assets, and America's wider military role in the region. Until those issues are addressed, Elijah believes Iran has no incentive to surrender its strongest bargaining chip. And right now, Tehran has made one thing absolutely clear: It has no intention of rescuing Trump from the war he chose to start. Elijah J. Magnier 🇪🇺

Mario Nawfal

282,783 views • 2 months ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump has tried military force and economic strangulation against Iran; now Tehran has concluded that pressure simply does not work Iran has taken enormous punishment. Its economy is reeling, inflation is brutal, and its military has absorbed repeated strikes. But six months into the war, the regime is still standing, and crucially, Iran can still disrupt the Strait of Hormuz. Middle East scholar Joshua Landis believes that has fundamentally changed Tehran's calculation. Washington has moved from military force to its new “Economic D-Day,” but the regional cooperation needed to make that strategy truly devastating isn't materialising. Iraq, Turkey, the UAE and Qatar still have powerful incentives to trade with Iran. Oman is negotiating with Tehran. Pakistan and Qatar are talking to the Iranians. These countries don't want another regional war or a permanently closed Persian Gulf, and Iran knows it. Joshua says Tehran increasingly believes America has already played its strongest cards, which makes surrender even less attractive. Iranian leaders now believe that if they cave to Trump's demands, America and Israel will simply return once Iran has recovered and hit it again. In Joshua's words, Iran fears becoming another Gaza, Lebanon or Syria; periodically attacked to keep it permanently weak. So Tehran has reached the opposite conclusion: It has to make resisting Iran more painful than living with it. Tehran may finally have learned the difference between America having the power to hurt it, and having the power to make it surrender. Joshua Landis Brandon Weichert
26:59

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump has tried military force and economic strangulation against Iran; now Tehran has concluded that pressure simply does not work Iran has taken enormous punishment. Its economy is reeling, inflation is brutal, and its military has absorbed repeated strikes. But six months into the war, the regime is still standing, and crucially, Iran can still disrupt the Strait of Hormuz. Middle East scholar Joshua Landis believes that has fundamentally changed Tehran's calculation. Washington has moved from military force to its new “Economic D-Day,” but the regional cooperation needed to make that strategy truly devastating isn't materialising. Iraq, Turkey, the UAE and Qatar still have powerful incentives to trade with Iran. Oman is negotiating with Tehran. Pakistan and Qatar are talking to the Iranians. These countries don't want another regional war or a permanently closed Persian Gulf, and Iran knows it. Joshua says Tehran increasingly believes America has already played its strongest cards, which makes surrender even less attractive. Iranian leaders now believe that if they cave to Trump's demands, America and Israel will simply return once Iran has recovered and hit it again. In Joshua's words, Iran fears becoming another Gaza, Lebanon or Syria; periodically attacked to keep it permanently weak. So Tehran has reached the opposite conclusion: It has to make resisting Iran more painful than living with it. Tehran may finally have learned the difference between America having the power to hurt it, and having the power to make it surrender. Joshua Landis Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

215,721 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 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 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump’s threats no longer frighten Iran, and every retreat makes the U.S look weaker Trump insists Iran is desperate to negotiate, but Tehran says there are no direct talks, Pakistan says they aren't happening, and even U.S officials deny any direct negotiations are taking place. So what's actually happening? Fmr. CIA analyst Larry Johnson says we're watching the same cycle repeat over and over again. Trump threatens overwhelming military action, Iran refuses to concede, the world braces for war, then Trump steps back. Days later, the threats begin all over again. The problem is that Iran has now learned the pattern, and it no longer assumes every ultimatum will end in military action. Instead, Tehran prepares for the worst, waits, and watches Washington blink. Larry believes that's because the U.S has run into a reality it cannot bomb away: The Strait of Hormuz. Trump says America controls it, but Larry says that's simply not true. The U.S can launch airstrikes, move ships, and threaten, but it cannot reopen the Strait on its own terms while Iran still retains the ability to strike shipping and energy infrastructure. Which means the military solution Trump keeps hinting at doesn't actually exist. That's why Larry believes Iran's leverage keeps growing. Every day the disruption continues, oil, LNG and other critical exports remain constrained, pressure builds across the global economy, and Washington faces mounting costs from a conflict it still cannot decisively resolve. And if that continues... The question may no longer be what concessions Iran is willing to make. It may be what concessions America can no longer avoid. SonofNewAmericanRevolution
48:20

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump’s threats no longer frighten Iran, and every retreat makes the U.S look weaker Trump insists Iran is desperate to negotiate, but Tehran says there are no direct talks, Pakistan says they aren't happening, and even U.S officials deny any direct negotiations are taking place. So what's actually happening? Fmr. CIA analyst Larry Johnson says we're watching the same cycle repeat over and over again. Trump threatens overwhelming military action, Iran refuses to concede, the world braces for war, then Trump steps back. Days later, the threats begin all over again. The problem is that Iran has now learned the pattern, and it no longer assumes every ultimatum will end in military action. Instead, Tehran prepares for the worst, waits, and watches Washington blink. Larry believes that's because the U.S has run into a reality it cannot bomb away: The Strait of Hormuz. Trump says America controls it, but Larry says that's simply not true. The U.S can launch airstrikes, move ships, and threaten, but it cannot reopen the Strait on its own terms while Iran still retains the ability to strike shipping and energy infrastructure. Which means the military solution Trump keeps hinting at doesn't actually exist. That's why Larry believes Iran's leverage keeps growing. Every day the disruption continues, oil, LNG and other critical exports remain constrained, pressure builds across the global economy, and Washington faces mounting costs from a conflict it still cannot decisively resolve. And if that continues... The question may no longer be what concessions Iran is willing to make. It may be what concessions America can no longer avoid. SonofNewAmericanRevolution

Mario Nawfal

285,538 views • 1 month ago

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Was Trump's sudden shift on Iran driven by diplomacy? Retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski says it exposed a power struggle inside the Pentagon. The people with the clearest picture of the war aren't the ones shaping policy. Kwiatkowski argues Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Caine has been pushed to the sidelines, while CENTCOM's Adm. Cooper has a more direct line to Hegseth and, ultimately, Trump. Why? Because, she says, Caine keeps delivering the bad news Trump doesn't want to hear. Kwiatkowski says Trump became so frustrated with JD Vance raising concerns about the war that he asked advisers how to remove him. If true, that's more than an internal disagreement. It suggests dissent itself had become the problem. She argues the cracks go beyond personalities. According to Kwiatkowski, CENTCOM is striking many of the same targets simply because the target list has been exhausted. Her conclusion is bleak. She believes Washington has already lost much of the military and financial leverage it thinks it still has, but the war keeps grinding on because no one in the chain of command is willing, or able. If she's right, and what's happening on the battlefield isn't what's making the decisions... who is? Brandon Weichert Karen Kwiatkowski
1:05:31

🇮🇷🇺🇸 Was Trump's sudden shift on Iran driven by diplomacy? Retired Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski says it exposed a power struggle inside the Pentagon. The people with the clearest picture of the war aren't the ones shaping policy. Kwiatkowski argues Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan Caine has been pushed to the sidelines, while CENTCOM's Adm. Cooper has a more direct line to Hegseth and, ultimately, Trump. Why? Because, she says, Caine keeps delivering the bad news Trump doesn't want to hear. Kwiatkowski says Trump became so frustrated with JD Vance raising concerns about the war that he asked advisers how to remove him. If true, that's more than an internal disagreement. It suggests dissent itself had become the problem. She argues the cracks go beyond personalities. According to Kwiatkowski, CENTCOM is striking many of the same targets simply because the target list has been exhausted. Her conclusion is bleak. She believes Washington has already lost much of the military and financial leverage it thinks it still has, but the war keeps grinding on because no one in the chain of command is willing, or able. If she's right, and what's happening on the battlefield isn't what's making the decisions... who is? Brandon Weichert Karen Kwiatkowski

Mario Nawfal

236,806 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump just declared economic war on anyone keeping Iran alive. There's just one HUGE problem: China. Trump's “Economic D-Day” is an attempt to financially isolate Iran on a scale Washington says has never been attempted before. And Treasury Sec. Bessent made the objective brutally clear: They want to collapse the Iranian regime. That means targeting not just Iran, but the countries, banks and businesses that continue trading with it. Which brings Washington directly into collision with Beijing. China buys the overwhelming majority of Iran's shipped oil. So if Trump genuinely intends to economically strangle Tehran, eventually he has to answer the question everyone is asking: What happens when China refuses to stop? He faces two choices: Don't enforce the sanctions aggressively against China, and Tehran retains the economic lifeline Washington is trying to sever. Enforce them, and what began as an economic war against Iran starts becoming an economic confrontation with the world's second-largest economy. And China isn't Iran. Beijing has economic weapons of its own: Rare earths, manufacturing, critical supply chains, and, crucially, an alternative financial architecture it's spent years developing precisely because it never wanted Washington to possess a permanent veto over Chinese commerce. That's the part of this story that could become far more consequential than whatever happens in Hormuz. America's greatest economic weapon isn't an aircraft carrier, it's the dollar. Access to the dollar system gives Washington an extraordinary ability to punish governments, banks and companies almost anywhere on Earth. But that power only remains overwhelming for as long as the rest of the world has no viable alternative. Every time Washington weaponises it, it creates another incentive to build one. And Trump is now threatening to demonstrate that vulnerability on an enormous scale. China doesn't need to overthrow the dollar tomorrow; it just needs enough infrastructure to continue trading when Washington says: Stop, or else. And once that infrastructure exists, other countries gain access to the same insurance policy. Trump's war on Iran exposed the limits of American military power. His economic war may be about to expose the limits of America's financial power too. Brandon Weichert
55:19

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump just declared economic war on anyone keeping Iran alive. There's just one HUGE problem: China. Trump's “Economic D-Day” is an attempt to financially isolate Iran on a scale Washington says has never been attempted before. And Treasury Sec. Bessent made the objective brutally clear: They want to collapse the Iranian regime. That means targeting not just Iran, but the countries, banks and businesses that continue trading with it. Which brings Washington directly into collision with Beijing. China buys the overwhelming majority of Iran's shipped oil. So if Trump genuinely intends to economically strangle Tehran, eventually he has to answer the question everyone is asking: What happens when China refuses to stop? He faces two choices: Don't enforce the sanctions aggressively against China, and Tehran retains the economic lifeline Washington is trying to sever. Enforce them, and what began as an economic war against Iran starts becoming an economic confrontation with the world's second-largest economy. And China isn't Iran. Beijing has economic weapons of its own: Rare earths, manufacturing, critical supply chains, and, crucially, an alternative financial architecture it's spent years developing precisely because it never wanted Washington to possess a permanent veto over Chinese commerce. That's the part of this story that could become far more consequential than whatever happens in Hormuz. America's greatest economic weapon isn't an aircraft carrier, it's the dollar. Access to the dollar system gives Washington an extraordinary ability to punish governments, banks and companies almost anywhere on Earth. But that power only remains overwhelming for as long as the rest of the world has no viable alternative. Every time Washington weaponises it, it creates another incentive to build one. And Trump is now threatening to demonstrate that vulnerability on an enormous scale. China doesn't need to overthrow the dollar tomorrow; it just needs enough infrastructure to continue trading when Washington says: Stop, or else. And once that infrastructure exists, other countries gain access to the same insurance policy. Trump's war on Iran exposed the limits of American military power. His economic war may be about to expose the limits of America's financial power too. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

536,670 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's economic war against Iran has officially begun. He's launched what Treasury Sec. Bessent describes as an unprecedented campaign to sever every financial lifeline keeping Tehran alive. Washington says it will go after the banks, oil traders, shipping companies, crypto networks and foreign entities helping Iran circumvent American pressure. But one question exposes just how enormous this could become: What about China? Iran can only be economically isolated if the countries still doing business with it cooperate. If they don't, America's secondary sanctions eventually have to reach them too. Enforce Operation Economic Outcast too selectively, and Iran keeps finding routes around it. Enforce it ruthlessly enough to genuinely isolate Tehran and Washington risks a much larger confrontation with the countries, banks and businesses refusing to comply. For all the extraordinary rhetoric, though, this also represents a significant movement down the escalation ladder. Weeks ago, Trump was threatening Iran with annihilation, and people were discussing ground troops and even nuclear escalation. Now Washington's principal weapon is the Treasury; the war has moved from bombs to banks. That's unquestionably preferable to Americans and Iranians killing each other, but it also suggests Washington is searching for another way to extract concessions it couldn't force militarily. Iran's negotiating position remains extremely ambitious: control over Hormuz, substantial shipping fees, reparations and the removal of American bases from the region. The precise details remain uncertain, but Washington clearly isn't prepared to accept the position as it currently understands it. So Trump needs leverage, and Operation Economic Outcast is designed to create it. The problem is that sanctions take time. Banks and companies adapt, trade gets rerouted, and new payment mechanisms emerge. Meanwhile, Washington wants Hormuz normalised, and energy markets stabilised quickly. And Iran is already signalling that it won't simply absorb unlimited pressure without responding. That creates the risk of a new escalation cycle: America squeezes Iran, they refuse to concede, Washington targets the countries keeping Tehran afloat, and Iran increases the cost for countries helping Washington. The bombs may have stopped falling, but Trump has replaced the military war with an economic gamble that could reach far beyond Iran. Brandon Weichert
49:12

🇺🇸🇮🇷 Trump's economic war against Iran has officially begun. He's launched what Treasury Sec. Bessent describes as an unprecedented campaign to sever every financial lifeline keeping Tehran alive. Washington says it will go after the banks, oil traders, shipping companies, crypto networks and foreign entities helping Iran circumvent American pressure. But one question exposes just how enormous this could become: What about China? Iran can only be economically isolated if the countries still doing business with it cooperate. If they don't, America's secondary sanctions eventually have to reach them too. Enforce Operation Economic Outcast too selectively, and Iran keeps finding routes around it. Enforce it ruthlessly enough to genuinely isolate Tehran and Washington risks a much larger confrontation with the countries, banks and businesses refusing to comply. For all the extraordinary rhetoric, though, this also represents a significant movement down the escalation ladder. Weeks ago, Trump was threatening Iran with annihilation, and people were discussing ground troops and even nuclear escalation. Now Washington's principal weapon is the Treasury; the war has moved from bombs to banks. That's unquestionably preferable to Americans and Iranians killing each other, but it also suggests Washington is searching for another way to extract concessions it couldn't force militarily. Iran's negotiating position remains extremely ambitious: control over Hormuz, substantial shipping fees, reparations and the removal of American bases from the region. The precise details remain uncertain, but Washington clearly isn't prepared to accept the position as it currently understands it. So Trump needs leverage, and Operation Economic Outcast is designed to create it. The problem is that sanctions take time. Banks and companies adapt, trade gets rerouted, and new payment mechanisms emerge. Meanwhile, Washington wants Hormuz normalised, and energy markets stabilised quickly. And Iran is already signalling that it won't simply absorb unlimited pressure without responding. That creates the risk of a new escalation cycle: America squeezes Iran, they refuse to concede, Washington targets the countries keeping Tehran afloat, and Iran increases the cost for countries helping Washington. The bombs may have stopped falling, but Trump has replaced the military war with an economic gamble that could reach far beyond Iran. Brandon Weichert

Mario Nawfal

281,342 views • 1 month ago

The US has spent $11.3bn on 5,500 military strikes in just the first six days of the war. President Trump says Iran has been totally destroyed, but Iran is still carrying out low-cost drone and mine attacks towards its neighbours in the Persian Gulf. This small but steady warfare has effectively stopped cargo ships from crossing the vital Strait of Hormuz, which connects Iran and the countries of the gulf to the rest of the world. That means oil and gas can't move, threatening to spike global oil prices and turning the conflict into a grueling war of financial attrition. While very few Americans have died, the US military has a problem: the expensive systems it uses to stop enemy drones cost much more than the cheap drones being fired at them. Is this how Iran, despite being vastly overpowered, can find a way to win this war?
12:33

The US has spent $11.3bn on 5,500 military strikes in just the first six days of the war. President Trump says Iran has been totally destroyed, but Iran is still carrying out low-cost drone and mine attacks towards its neighbours in the Persian Gulf. This small but steady warfare has effectively stopped cargo ships from crossing the vital Strait of Hormuz, which connects Iran and the countries of the gulf to the rest of the world. That means oil and gas can't move, threatening to spike global oil prices and turning the conflict into a grueling war of financial attrition. While very few Americans have died, the US military has a problem: the expensive systems it uses to stop enemy drones cost much more than the cheap drones being fired at them. Is this how Iran, despite being vastly overpowered, can find a way to win this war?

Channel 4 News

31,153 views • 6 months ago

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇱 Gaza and the Iran war have changed the U.S-Israel relationship forever. Ian Bremmer says the winds are already shifting: Most Americans under 40 are more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israelis, including young Republicans. Rahm Emanuel said on Bill Maher that Israel doesn't need American money. Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly are framing Trump as "Israel first, not America first." A deal to reopen the Strait feels closer now than at any point since the ceasefire. But you wouldn't want to bet your house on it. ian bremmer
10:42

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇱 Gaza and the Iran war have changed the U.S-Israel relationship forever. Ian Bremmer says the winds are already shifting: Most Americans under 40 are more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israelis, including young Republicans. Rahm Emanuel said on Bill Maher that Israel doesn't need American money. Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly are framing Trump as "Israel first, not America first." A deal to reopen the Strait feels closer now than at any point since the ceasefire. But you wouldn't want to bet your house on it. ian bremmer

Mario Nawfal

37,546 views • 4 months ago