ๆญฃๅœจๅŠ ่ฝฝ่ง†้ข‘...

่ง†้ข‘ๅŠ ่ฝฝๅคฑ่ดฅ

๐Œ๐Ž๐’๐’๐€๐ƒโ€“๐ˆ๐’๐ˆ๐’ ๐‚๐Ž๐‹๐‹๐€๐๐Ž๐‘๐€๐“๐ˆ๐Ž๐ ๐ˆ๐ ๐’๐˜๐‘๐ˆ๐€ The recent explosions in Damascus suggest a convergence of interests between Mossad and ISIS, particularly factions associated with Saudi influence. These operations serve a broader strategic objective: countering the growing influence of Qatar and Turkey as they seek to shape the regionโ€™s future. By carrying...

22,045 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰ โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

0 ๆก่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๆš‚ๆ— ่ฏ„่ฎบ

ๅŽŸๅง‹ๅธ–ๅญ็š„่ฏ„่ฎบๅฐ†ๆ˜พ็คบๅœจ่ฟ™้‡Œ

็›ธๅ…ณ่ง†้ข‘

I watched this video of Hon. Ben Nwankwo, and honestly, I wept for Ndigbo. The man drove home a point so forcefully and convincingly that it was impossible to ignore. He made it abundantly clear that the reality of Nigerian politics is far different from what many people in the South-East have chosen to believe. His first message was simple but profound: a President can be elected in Nigeria without the political support of the South-East. In other words, the region alone neither possesses the electoral strength to install a President nor the capacity to prevent one from emerging. Whether people like to hear it or not, that is the political reality he laid bare. His second message was even more striking. He drew a clear distinction between being influential and being loud. According to him, influence is the ability to shape outcomes, build alliances, negotiate interests and command political relevance. Noise, on the other hand, is merely making the loudest headlines and dominating social media conversations without translating any of that energy into tangible political results or If Igbo man have some pieces of money they begin to fly Private Jets, drive Royce Rolls, it is being loud and the next you see is convoy that is not influence but loud. That point hit me particularly hard because many people have confused noise for influence. They assume that because a group is vocal, it automatically means it is politically powerful. The two are not the same. A region can trend daily on social media and still lack the political leverage required to achieve its objectives. Sadly, some people in the South-East have convinced themselves that the path to producing a President lies in emotional rhetoric, ethnic solidarity alone and constant agitation. Meanwhile,the few voices within the region calling for strategic political engagement, alliance-building and reintegration into the mainstream political process are often attacked, insulted and bullied into silence. The truth is that politics is a game of numbers, negotiation, relationships and influence not emotion. If Pres Bola Tinubu were not a nationalist in his approach to governance, many of the major road and infrastructure projects currently ongoing in the South-East could easily have been redirected to regions that overwhelmingly supported him politically. He was fully aware that the South-East largely voted for their brother Peter Obi, in the 2023 election. Yet those projects were not abandoned. That fact reinforces the point made by Hon. Ben Nwankwo. During the election, the South-East overwhelmingly voted for their own son, Peter Obi. However, Tinubu still emerged President without winning the region. Whether one likes it or not, that reality demonstrates that political success in Nigeria is built through broad national coalitions and strategic alliances rather than regional sentiment alone. He retairated by saying the Igbos can't help and they can't hinder. In my view, one of the major reasons the South-East continues to struggle politically at the national level is the tendency to place ethnic considerations above broader political realities. Politics has become overly centered on tribal interests instead of building the nationwide partnerships required to secure influence at the highest levels. No region can isolate itself politically and still expect to dominate national politics. Influence is earned through engagement, negotiation, coalition-building, and strategic participation. Hon. Ben Nwankwo's message was uncomfortable, but sometimes the most uncomfortable truths are the ones that need to be heard the most. Until more people begin to distinguish between being influential and merely being loud, the South-East may continue to find itself making plenty of noise while achieving very little politically. #NewDay

ร€lรบbร rรญkร  ๐Ÿ‡ณ๐Ÿ‡ฌ

11,855 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

๐Ÿšจ Turkeyโ€™s Rise and the Fear in Tehran & Tel Aviv. Turkeyโ€™s re-emergence as a regional power is changing the balance of the Middle East. Both Iran and Israel increasingly see Ankara as a rival, even a threat. For Iran, Turkeyโ€™s growing influence undermines Tehranโ€™s ambition to shape the region. For Israel, it threatens the strategic dominance Tel Aviv has enjoyed for decades. Turkey has invested heavily in its defence industry. The Bayraktar drone family, the Akinci UAV, and now the stealthy Kizilelma unmanned fighter have reshaped modern battlefields from Libya to Ukraine. Advanced missile systems and naval platforms are giving Ankara unprecedented independence from U.S. and NATO suppliers. Beyond weapons, Turkey is pursuing regional influence. In Syria, Ankara is a counterweight to both Russia and Iran. In the Caucasus, it backs Azerbaijan against Armenia. Across Africa, Turkish military bases and training programs extend influence from Libya to Somalia. In the Mediterranean, disputes with Greece and Cyprus showcase Ankaraโ€™s maritime ambitions. History gives Turkey unique leverage. It possesses NATOโ€™s second largest army, and wields cultural and religious ties that reach deep into the Muslim world. This blend of hard and soft power gives it a reach neither Iran nor Israel can easily match. Geography strengthens Ankara further. Control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits makes it a gatekeeper between the Black Sea and Mediterranean. Its role as an energy corridor connecting Caspian, Middle Eastern and European markets adds another layer of strategic weight. Even under severe economic crisis and inflation, Turkey is doubling down on defence and geopolitical manoeuvring. For both Tehran and Tel Aviv, this resilience is unnerving. For Iran, Turkeyโ€™s military technology and its Sunni-led influence threaten Tehranโ€™s regional narrative. For Israel, Turkeyโ€™s expanding arsenal and growing leadership across the Muslim world challenge its position as the regionโ€™s undisputed military power. The fea..r is clear: if Ankara continues on its current trajectory, it may emerge not just as a player โ€” but as the decisive power in the Middle East.

Defence Index

53,348 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 1 ๅนดๅ‰

๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฆ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ฑ Saudi Arabia and Israel normalization... Do it now, while you have President Trump in office. โœ‹ Letโ€™s be brutally honest. The Middle East has changed a lot since October 7. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel is operating under the same strategic calculus. โค๏ธ I say this with genuine respect for both countries: ๐Ÿ‘‰ Before October 7, Saudiโ€“Israel normalization seemed very attractive. ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ฑ For Israel, it promised a breakthrough in Muslim (not only Arab) perceptions of the legitimacy of the Israeli state. ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฆ For Saudi Arabia, it offered a strategic counterweight to Iran, whose influence had spread across collapsing Arab states through militias and political infiltration. ๐Ÿ‘‰ But the postโ€“October 7 geopolitical landscape is different: ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ท Iran no longer projects the aura of a rising regional hegemon... Thanks to the Israeli military and intelligence operations. ๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ฑ Israel, after two years of direct confrontation with Iranโ€™s strongest Arab militias and the Iranian regime itself, now stands as the dominant military power in the Middle East (perhaps only rivaled by Turkey?). ๐Ÿ‡ธ๐Ÿ‡ฆ Meanwhile, the Saudi leadership is recalibrating its Sunni dominance by engaging the new jihadist-leaning regime in Damascus, following the fall of the Assad regime... also Thanks to Israeli military and intelligence operations. In this new balance of power, the urgency that once propelled normalization has evaporated. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Israel sees an immediate, self-interested reason to rush. ๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ The only real incentive for them is to satisfy U.S. President Trumpโ€™s desire to replicate the spectacle of the Abraham Accords. โ˜๏ธ That being said, friends I trust in both Israel and Saudi Arabia, confirm the same thing: the desire for normalization is real. โš ๏ธ This, now, may be the most ideal window open for such a normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel to happen. So, do not waste it! But if it is going to happen, it must be done now, with clarity and sincerity, not as a reactive maneuver against Iran, not as a bargaining chip with Washington, and not as a symbolic gesture. ๐Ÿ‘‰ If Riyadh and Jerusalem take this step, it will reshape the regionโ€™s strategic architecture for decades. If they miss it, the opportunity may not return. ๐Ÿ‘Œ Do it for the future of the Middle East.

Dalia Ziada - ุฏุงู„ูŠุง ุฒูŠุงุฏุฉ

35,495 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 9 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

My discussion with Erin Molan on The Erin Molan Show about Iran War, the Middle East, and Saudi-U.S. relations: โ€” #SaudiArabiaโ€™s priority remains de-escalation and regional stability, even as the #Gulf continues to face Iranian missile and drone #attacks. โ€” This is strategic patience, not weakness. The #Kingdom seeks a secure #region free from war, instability, and threats to vital #shipping lanes in the Arabian #Gulf. โ€” President #Trump has consistently shown respect for Saudi Arabiaโ€™s leadership and has helped strengthen strategic and defense ties with the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia, in turn, remains a major #strategic and #economic partner of the #UnitedStates. The Saudi-U.S. relationship, particularly under President #Trump, remains strong regardless of political noise or careless jokes. โ€” On the #Abraham_Accords, #SaudiArabia has always welcomed genuine peace. The obstacle remains #Israelโ€™s refusal to take meaningful steps toward the #Palestinians. Both Israeli and Palestinian #youth deserve the chance to live in peace, and Saudi Arabiaโ€™s position has remained clear, balanced, and reasonable. โ€” We support #Pakistanโ€™s mediation efforts between #Washington and #Tehran. But if #Iran rejects mediation and continues attacking Gulf states, the Gulf could be drawn into the #war. Saudi Arabia carries a major responsibility in safeguarding energy stability and protecting the global #economy, which is precisely why de-escalation remains the Kingdomโ€™s priority.

Mohammed Alhamed

109,162 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 5 ไธชๆœˆๅ‰

Monroe vs. Near Abroad Doctrine The Russian invasion of Ukraine can be justified as a regular military action by comparing it with the Monroe Doctrine of the USA and Russia's "Near Abroad Doctrine." Both doctrines are based on the principle that great powers seek to protect and stabilize their regional spheres of influence. The Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed by President James Monroe in 1823, declaring the Western Hemisphere, including the Americas, as the sphere of influence of the USA where European interventions would not be tolerated. Its aim was to safeguard the independence of newly established American states from European colonialism and interference. Throughout history, the Monroe Doctrine served as the basis for several interventions in Latin America to secure US interests and regional stability. This policy reflects the USA's aspiration to keep its hemisphere free from external influence and to assert its security interests. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia developed the "Near Abroad Doctrine" to maintain its influence over the former Soviet republics. Russia considers these regions as critical buffer zones whose stability and orientation towards Moscow are of vital interest. Russia has taken military actions in several instances to protect its interests, such as in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. These actions are justified by the need to protect Russian-speaking minorities and to counter NATO influence. Both doctrines emphasize the pursuit of regional hegemony and security by major powers. Both the USA and Russia view military actions as legitimate means to protect their spheres of influence and ensure stability. In the past, the USA has intervened militarily to safeguard its interests in the Western Hemisphere, for example, in Cuba, Grenada, and Panama. These actions were often portrayed as necessary to maintain regional order and protect American interests. Similarly, Russia justifies its special military operation in Ukraine as a measure to protect its security interests, prevent Western, particularly NATO, influence, and stabilize its immediate neighborhood. From this perspective, the Russian invasion of Ukraine can be seen as a regular military action, akin to how the USA utilized the Monroe Doctrine to intervene militarily within its hemisphere. Both major powers act under the belief that securing their regional spheres of influence and countering external threats are essential for their national security.

Zlatti71

12,925 ๆฌก่ง‚็œ‹ โ€ข 2 ๅนดๅ‰