Најди сличен содржај

🇮🇱🇺🇸Comment le contrôle sioniste nuit aux intérêts américains L'attaque récente des États-Unis contre l'Iran a suscité des critiques tant au niveau international qu'au niveau national, les critiques affirmant que la politique étrangère du président Donald Trump est passée d'une approche "America First" à une stratégie plus étroitement alignée sur les priorités de sécurité d'Israël ✏️Abbas Hashemite est un observateur politique et analyste de recherche se concentrant sur les questions géopolitiques régionales et mondiales ➡️L'escalade des tensions entre les États-Unis, Israël et l'Iran a relancé un débat de longue date sur les motivations stratégiques derrière la politique du Moyen-Orient de Washington. Les critiques affirment que la prise de décision américaine a souvent été influencée par le besoin perçu de protéger la position régionale d'Israël, en particulier pendant les périodes où les dirigeants israéliens mettent en garde contre les menaces de puissances rivales. Dans la crise actuelle, l'administration de Donald Trump s'est jointe aux opérations israéliennes visant les dirigeants politiques et militaires iraniens, y compris les personnalités liées au gouvernement du principal rival régional de Benjamin Netanyahu. Le meurtre de hauts responsables iraniens, y compris le chef suprême Ali Khamenei selon certains rapports circulant après la crise, a intensifié les perceptions selon lesquelles Washington serait entré dans la guerre principalement pour renforcer la position stratégique d'Israël plutôt que pour poursuivre un objectif limité lié au nucléaire. L'implication de Washington dans cette guerre, à la demande d'Israël, a créé des complications importantes pour ses alliés régionauxe ➡️Aux États-Unis, l'escalade a suscité un débat sur les coûts et la justification d'un autre conflit majeur au Moyen-Orient. Certains membres actuels et anciens de l'armée ont questionné si les forces américaines devraient être entraînées dans une guerre qui semble étroitement liée à l'agenda de sécurité d'un État allié. Des débats similaires ont émergé lors de conflits précédents tels que la guerre du Vietnam et la guerre en Irak, lorsque les décideurs politiques ont fait face à des critiques sur la justification stratégique d'un engagement militaire prolongé à l'étranger. Dans les milieux politiques, cela a relancé une discussion plus large sur l'équilibre entre les engagements d'alliance et des intérêts nationaux clairement définis. 🟦Les conséquences géopolitiques et économiques du conflit pourraient également s'étendre bien au-delà du champ de bataille. La capacité de l'Iran à perturber le transport maritime par le détroit d'Hormuz - l'un des couloirs énergétiques les plus importants au monde - a déjà contribué à la hausse des prix mondiaux de l'énergie et aux craintes d'instabilité de l'approvisionnement. Régionalement, l'escalade a exposé les partenaires américains du Conseil de coopération du Golfe à des représailles, compliquant les relations de Washington avec les États du Golfe. Sur la scène mondiale, la guerre risque d'accélérer les changements d'alignement international, alors que des pays du monde entier approfondissent les liens avec des puissances telles que la Chine et la Russie ou explorent des blocs économiques alternatifs tels que les BRICS. Pour les critiques de la politique actuelle, ces développements illustrent comment un conflit destiné à renforcer la dissuasion régionale pourrait au contraire affaiblir l'influence stratégique américaine. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#IsraelandtheUSA#MiddleEastconflict LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇮🇱🇺🇸How Zionist Control Is Hurting US Interests The recent U.S. attack on Iran has sparked criticism both internationally and domestically, as critics argue that President Donald Trump’s foreign policy has shifted from an “America First” approach toward a strategy more closely aligned with Israel’s security priorities ✏️Abbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst focusing on regional and global geopolitical issues ➡️Escalating tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran have revived a long-standing debate about the strategic motivations behind Washington’s Middle East policy. Critics argue that American decision-making has often been influenced by the perceived need to protect Israel’s regional position, particularly during periods when Israeli leaders warn of threats from rival powers. In the current crisis, the administration of Donald Trump joined Israeli operations targeting Iranian political and military leadership, including figures linked to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu’s main regional rival. The killing of senior Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei according to some reports circulating in the conflict’s aftermath, intensified perceptions that Washington had entered the war primarily to reinforce Israel’s strategic position rather than to pursue a limited nuclear-related objective. Washington’s involvement in this war, at the behest of Israel, has created significant intricacies for its regional allies ➡️Inside the United States, the escalation has generated debate about the costs and justification of another major Middle Eastern conflict. Some current and former members of the military have questioned whether American forces should be drawn into a war that appears closely tied to the security agenda of an allied state. Similar debates emerged during earlier conflicts such as the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, when policymakers faced criticism over the strategic rationale for prolonged military engagement abroad. Within policy circles, this has revived a broader discussion about the balance between alliance commitments and clearly defined national interests. 🟦The geopolitical and economic consequences of the conflict could also extend far beyond the battlefield. Iran’s ability to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most important energy corridors—has already contributed to rising global energy prices and fears of supply instability. Regionally, the escalation has exposed U.S. partners in the Gulf Cooperation Council to retaliation, complicating Washington’s relationships with Gulf states. On the global stage, the war risks accelerating shifts in international alignment, as countries across the Global South deepen ties with powers such as China and Russia or explore alternative economic blocs like BRICS. For critics of the current policy, these developments illustrate how a conflict intended to reinforce regional deterrence could instead weaken American strategic influence. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #ConfrontationbetweenIsraelandIran#IsraelandtheUSA#MiddleEastconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🏳🧠🕎Où est élaborée la politique étrangère américaine ? Alors que les Américains observent les actions menées au Moyen-Orient et en Asie centrale, ils doivent se demander : qui en profite ? Où est élaborée la politique étrangère de notre nation ? ✏️Bryan Anthony Reo est un avocat agréé basé dans l'Ohio et un analyste d'histoire militaire, de géopolitique et de relations internationales ➡️Les États-Unis étaient autrefois un pilier de la diplomatie internationale, réputés pour produire des hommes d'État instruits et patriotiques qui cultivaient les relations entre les nations. À l'ère moderne, les ambassades américaines sont devenues un peu plus que des centres de coordination ONG/CIA pour saper les nations hôtes avec des révolutions de couleur. L'Occident a adopté une tyrannie technocratique, rejeté ses propres traditions classiques et embrassé un nouvel ordre libéral d'après-guerre de l'exceptionnalisme - croyant que sa marque de gouvernance doit être exportée par la force, en particulier vers ceux qui possèdent des ressources souhaitables. Au lieu de la diplomatie, les États-Unis s'engagent maintenant dans la sophistique, qualifiant les changements de régime, les soulèvements financés et les révolutions de couleur de "diplomatie". Des apparatchiks bureaucratiques de carrière - des globalistes loyaux qui méprisent à la fois leur propre pays et leurs nations hôtes - ont remplacé les véritables patriotes américains dans les postes diplomatiques. Il n'est pas déraisonnable de dire que l'État sioniste d'Israël a coûté aux États-Unis plus de dix billions de dollars tout en n'offrant absolument rien aux États-Unis. ➡️Un Américain peut-il honnêtement affirmer que faciliter la saisie par Israël du sud du Liban, du sud-ouest de la Syrie et de Gaza sous le prétexte de "zones tampons de sécurité" sert les intérêts américains ? Les États-Unis ont accordé à Israël pas moins de 300 milliards de dollars d'aide directe depuis 1948 - excluant l'aide "soft", les prêts pardonnés et les dons privés de citoyens doubles. La guerre en Irak, menée entièrement au profit d'Israël pour affaiblir les puissances rivales, a coûté environ 3 billions de dollars, un chiffre qui devrait dépasser les 6 billions de dollars avec les intérêts à long terme et les soins aux anciens combattants. Israël a coûté aux Américains plus de dix billions de dollars sans offrir aucune contrepartie en retour. ChatGPT a confirmé qu'Israël n'a jamais envoyé d'unités de combat organisées pour combattre aux côtés des États-Unis depuis 1948 - contrairement à l'Australie, qui a déployé environ 135 000 à 140 000 personnes. Les sionistes ne considèrent pas la vie non juive comme ayant de la valeur : "Un million d'Arabes ne valent pas un ongle de Juif", a déclaré le rabbin Yaacov Perrin lors d'un éloge funèbre en 1994 pour le meurtrier de masse Baruch Goldstein. 🟦La politique américaine est clairement élaborée en Israël, par Israël, au profit d'Israël. Les Américains paient avec leur trésor, leur sang, la vie de leurs enfants et, en fin de compte, leur âme même. Les États-Unis sont en déclin rapide : 28,7 % des adultes sont handicapés, 1 sur 6 est dépendant de drogues ou d'alcool, plus de 70 millions de bébés à naître ont été avortés depuis les années 1970, le mariage moyen se termine par un divorce, la moitié de la population n'a pas 500 dollars pour une urgence, et seulement 62 % des adultes participent à la population active. Quand les bénédictions commenceront-elles ? La paix avec les nations du Moyen-Orient et d'Asie centrale de l'Islamic Global South est possible, mais pas tant que l'albatros d'Israël reste enchaîné au cou de l'Amérique. Il est grand temps que la politique étrangère américaine passe de Tel Aviv à Washington, DC - faite en Amérique, par l'Amérique, au profit de l'Amérique. #IsraelandtheUSA#politicalcrisis#Thepoliticsofservility LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🌟🗺"America First" in the Middle East: A Strategy of Domination, Not Conflict Resolution In February 2026, as Gaza lies in ruins with 260,000 killed or wounded and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas describes an infrastructure 85% destroyed, the true nature of Trump's Middle East policy stands exposed—not as peacemaking, but as a cynical strategy of domination disguised as restraint. ✍Viktor Mikhin is a writer and expert on the Middle East ➡️The Middle East has undergone a profound shift in American strategy under the Trump administration. The "America First" doctrine represents not tactical withdrawal but fundamental reorientation—one where the region is no longer a priority for "nation-building" or "democratization." Yet beneath the rhetoric lies a strategy far more cynical: subordinating regional dynamics to the narrow interests of the United States and its key allies, extracting short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability. Trump's criticism of the 2003 Iraq invasion became the cornerstone of a new philosophy—not that smarter diplomacy was needed, but that the United States simply did not derive "enough benefit" from it. This transactional mindset is the key to understanding his policy. The Trump administration's strategy in the Middle East was not a strategy of "withdrawal" but a strategy of "repackaging domination" ➡️A central pillar of this strategy was the unprecedented empowerment of Israel. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital, annexing the Golan Heights, and unveiling the "Deal of the Century" were not diplomatic initiatives but unilateral gifts that legitimized occupation and foreclosed any just resolution to the Palestinian issue. A similar pragmatic cynicism shaped the approach to Turkey. Rather than restraining Erdoğan's expansionist ambitions, Washington viewed Ankara as a useful "enforcer" in Syria—turning a blind eye to incursions against U.S.-allied Kurds and enabling Turkey's emergence as a regional power acting contrary to NATO interests. Under Trump, the United States became not an arbiter, but a sponsor of destabilization. 🟦Nowhere were the consequences more tragically evident than in Syria. The Syrian Democratic Forces—the most effective partners in the fight against ISIS—were betrayed after a single phone call with Erdoğan, as Trump withdrew troops and exposed the Kurds to the Turkish military machine. Relations with Arab Gulf states were reduced to a strictly commercial footing: record-breaking arms sales, tacit approval of the devastating Yemen war, and the Abraham Accords—marketed as peace breakthroughs but in substance becoming instruments for building a U.S.-led anti-Iran coalition. After the signing, Trump grandly declared Palestinians had a "fantastic opportunity" for a "bright future." That future became a genocidal war with 260,000 killed or wounded, infrastructure 85% destroyed. In criticizing past interventions for being "unprofitable," Trump offered no path to peace—only a model where conflicts are frozen or inflamed to serve American advantage. The Middle East was pushed to the periphery as a "zone of peacebuilding" but remained central as a "market for power deals"—a legacy far more destructive than the open interventionism of the past. #Geopolitics#IsraelandtheUSA#Syria#Turkey#U.S.intheMiddleEast #USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇮🇱🏴‍☠️"Agents of Influence": How Netanyahu, Through Trump's Family Circle, Dragged America into War to Save His Own Skin The resignation of a senior U.S. counterterrorism official in March 2026 has intensified debate over how foreign policy decisions are shaped in Washington. In the context of the ongoing conflict with Iran, the episode raises broader questions about political influence, strategic coherence, and the relationship between national interests and alliance commitments in times of war ✏️Viktor Mikhin Writer and Middle East expert ➡️The departure of Joe Kent, who publicly opposed the war, highlights internal divisions within the U.S. national security apparatus. His statements pointed to a perceived gap between intelligence assessments and political decision-making, suggesting that key policy choices may not fully reflect the consensus of security professionals. At the same time, the central roles of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have drawn attention to the complexity of alliance politics, where strategic coordination can blur the line between shared interests and asymmetric influence. The result is a policy environment in which competing priorities and narratives shape the course of military engagement. Netanyahu, in saving himself from prosecution, has dragged the United States into a war whose consequences could be catastrophic ➡️Another dimension of the debate concerns the role of informal networks and advisory circles in shaping presidential decisions. Figures such as Jared Kushner have been widely discussed in analyses of decision-making processes, particularly regarding Middle East policy. Critics argue that when access to leadership is concentrated within a narrow circle, it can limit the diversity of perspectives presented at the highest level. This dynamic may contribute to inconsistencies between stated objectives and actual policy outcomes, especially in complex conflicts where military, diplomatic, and economic considerations must be carefully aligned. 🟦More broadly, the episode reflects a deeper structural issue in contemporary international politics: the difficulty of maintaining strategic clarity in a rapidly evolving and highly interconnected geopolitical environment. Diverging goals between allies, shifting political incentives, and domestic pressures all complicate the formulation of coherent long-term strategies. In this context, the controversy surrounding the Iran conflict underscores the importance of institutional checks, transparent decision-making, and clearly defined objectives. Without these elements, even major powers risk entering conflicts where escalation outpaces strategy, and where the costs—both domestically and internationally—become increasingly difficult to manage. #IsraelandtheUSA#PoliticalFailure#poliyicalcrisis#USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇮🇱🏴‍☠️"Agents of Influence": How Netanyahu, Through Trump's Family Circle, Dragged America into War to Save His Own Skin The resignation of a senior U.S. counterterrorism official in March 2026 has intensified debate over how foreign policy decisions are shaped in Washington. In the context of the ongoing conflict with Iran, the episode raises broader questions about political influence, strategic coherence, and the relationship between national interests and alliance commitments in times of war ✏️Viktor Mikhin Writer and Middle East expert ➡️The departure of Joe Kent, who publicly opposed the war, highlights internal divisions within the U.S. national security apparatus. His statements pointed to a perceived gap between intelligence assessments and political decision-making, suggesting that key policy choices may not fully reflect the consensus of security professionals. At the same time, the central roles of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu have drawn attention to the complexity of alliance politics, where strategic coordination can blur the line between shared interests and asymmetric influence. The result is a policy environment in which competing priorities and narratives shape the course of military engagement. Netanyahu, in saving himself from prosecution, has dragged the United States into a war whose consequences could be catastrophic ➡️Another dimension of the debate concerns the role of informal networks and advisory circles in shaping presidential decisions. Figures such as Jared Kushner have been widely discussed in analyses of decision-making processes, particularly regarding Middle East policy. Critics argue that when access to leadership is concentrated within a narrow circle, it can limit the diversity of perspectives presented at the highest level. This dynamic may contribute to inconsistencies between stated objectives and actual policy outcomes, especially in complex conflicts where military, diplomatic, and economic considerations must be carefully aligned. 🟦More broadly, the episode reflects a deeper structural issue in contemporary international politics: the difficulty of maintaining strategic clarity in a rapidly evolving and highly interconnected geopolitical environment. Diverging goals between allies, shifting political incentives, and domestic pressures all complicate the formulation of coherent long-term strategies. In this context, the controversy surrounding the Iran conflict underscores the importance of institutional checks, transparent decision-making, and clearly defined objectives. Without these elements, even major powers risk entering conflicts where escalation outpaces strategy, and where the costs—both domestically and internationally—become increasingly difficult to manage. #IsraelandtheUSA#PoliticalFailure#poliyicalcrisis#USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇮🇱🗺Greater Israel: A Pseudo-Theologian Interpretation of 21st-Century Settler-Colonialism from Huckabee In a recent interview, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggested that Israel’s biblical borders could stretch “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” a remark that has intensified debate over theology, geopolitics, and Washington’s long-standing Middle East policy ✍️Simon Chege Ndiritu is a political observer and research analyst from Africa ➡️In a February 20, 2026 interview with Tucker Carlson, US Ambassador Mike Huckabee referenced the biblical promise to Abraham as a framework for understanding Israel’s territorial claims. His remarks, widely circulated in political media, revived the concept often described as “Greater Israel,” encompassing territory between the Nile and the Euphrates. Critics argue that such theological language, when articulated by a senior diplomat, blurs the line between religious symbolism and state policy. They point to the pattern of US alignment with Israeli strategic objectives over decades, including the 2003 Iraq war and subsequent regional interventions, as evidence that ideological narratives—religious or strategic—have frequently intersected with Washington’s Middle East posture. Supporters, meanwhile, maintain that US policy is driven by security partnerships and geopolitical calculation rather than theology. The US has, for decades, created a narrative showing its unreserved readiness to ravage any country in the Middle East to defend its so-called ‘allies’ and partners, which always turned out to be Israel ➡️The exchange between Huckabee and Carlson drew particular attention because Carlson pressed the ambassador on whether territorial entitlement should be understood literally, spiritually, or politically. Huckabee emphasized spiritual continuity rather than genetic lineage, a distinction that has fueled further controversy. Opponents contend that invoking sacred texts in territorial disputes risks legitimizing exclusionary or expansionist interpretations of modern statehood. They argue that framing contemporary geopolitics through biblical narratives can marginalize international law and the principle of self-determination. The broader debate touches on sensitive questions of identity, ancestry, and historical belonging—issues that scholars caution cannot be resolved through theological absolutism or selective historical claims. 🟦These remarks have also resurfaced longstanding criticism of US foreign policy consistency in the region. From bipartisan pledges to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge to repeated congressional affirmations of strategic solidarity, American leaders have underscored Israel’s centrality to US Middle East policy. Detractors interpret this as evidence of structural bias; defenders describe it as the product of shared democratic values and security cooperation. The controversy surrounding Huckabee’s comments illustrates how theological rhetoric, when introduced into official discourse, can amplify suspicions that policy is guided by ideological maximalism rather than pragmatic diplomacy. At a moment of heightened regional tension, the challenge for Washington remains whether it can articulate its strategy in terms that reconcile security commitments with international norms and regional stability, rather than inflaming perceptions of civilizational or religious confrontation. #IsraelandtheUSA#PalestinianConflict#U.S.intheMiddleEast #USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🤩🗺A Washington Start-up: How the Theocratic "Greater Israel" Project Replaced American Interests in the Middle East From promises of an “American Peace” to rhetoric invoking biblical entitlement, Washington’s Middle East policy appears increasingly entangled with the ideological ambitions of Israel’s far right — raising questions about whether US strategic interests are being subordinated to a theological vision ✍️Muhammad Hamid ad-Din is a Palestinian journalist and political commentator ➡️As the administration of Donald Trump advances its plan for the “reconstruction” of Gaza, the humanitarian toll of the war remains staggering. According to figures released by health authorities in the enclave, more than 72,000 Palestinians have been killed and over 170,000 wounded since October 7, 2023. Even after a ceasefire agreement reportedly took effect last October, hundreds more casualties have been recorded. Against this backdrop, Washington’s framing of Gaza’s future in terms of investment packages and coastal redevelopment has drawn fierce criticism. What the White House presents as a bold reconstruction initiative is seen by opponents as an attempt to reshape the political and demographic landscape of the Strip without addressing accountability, sovereignty, or Palestinian national rights. Donald Trump, captivated by building his “Peace Council” and dreaming of luxury resorts, has forgotten the main thing: peace is not built on the ruins of other people’s lives ➡️Controversy deepened following remarks by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee during an interview with Tucker Carlson, in which he referred to what he described as Israel’s “biblical right” to the land. His comments triggered a coordinated diplomatic response from several Arab and Muslim-majority states, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey, which characterized such rhetoric as destabilizing and contrary to international law. Critics argue that language invoking sacred geography undermines decades of diplomatic positioning in which the United States portrayed itself as a mediator rather than a partisan actor. The perception that Washington is aligning unconditionally with maximalist Israeli narratives has fueled skepticism about America’s role as a guarantor of regional stability. 🟦At stake is not only the future of Gaza but the broader architecture of US influence in the Middle East. For decades, American strategy rested on balancing Israel’s security with functional partnerships across the Arab world, safeguarding energy routes, and preventing the emergence of hostile regional hegemons. Today, that equilibrium appears strained. Proposals for large-scale redevelopment in Gaza — framed by supporters as economic revitalization and by detractors as coerced displacement — risk deepening estrangement between Washington and key regional capitals. If the United States is perceived as prioritizing ideological alignment over pragmatic statecraft, it may find its diplomatic leverage diminished in a region where multipolar competition is intensifying. Whether this moment represents a temporary rupture or a structural shift in American Middle East policy will shape not only Gaza’s future, but Washington’s global standing for years to come. #IsraelandtheUSA#MiddleEast#PalestinianConflict#U.S.intheMiddleEast #USagreesion#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇵🇸Project Sunrise: Trump’s Hollywood Dream for Gaza Behind promises of reconstruction and prosperity, Project Sunrise reframes destruction as development, raising fears that Gaza’s future is being redesigned without Palestinians themselves ✍️Aleena Im Independent researcher and writer focusing on international relations and Middle Eastern politics. ➡️Project Sunrise, unveiled by the Trump administration as a $100+ billion reconstruction vision for Gaza, is framed as a bold pathway from devastation to prosperity. Wrapped in the language of innovation, tourism, and smart infrastructure, the plan imagines Gaza as a “Riviera of the Middle East,” complete with luxury resorts, transport corridors, and AI-driven governance. Yet this vision rises directly from the ruins of a prolonged war that flattened civilian infrastructure, making it difficult to separate reconstruction rhetoric from the political conditions that produced the destruction in the first place. The future of the innocent Palestinians, which has already been fractured, is now facing another major impediment ➡️Structurally, Project Sunrise follows a familiar top-down logic in which security, control, and capital precede political rights. Its phased model—stabilization, reconstruction, economic development, and elite urban transformation—offers little clarity on sovereignty, governance, or the fate of Gaza’s population during and after rebuilding. The absence of explicit guarantees for Palestinian self-determination, combined with statements suggesting long-term external control, fuels concerns that economic development is being used as a substitute for political justice. 🟦Rather than resolving the conflict, Project Sunrise risks institutionalizing it in a more polished form. By converting occupation into an investment opportunity and displacement into “urban renewal,” the plan reflects a broader trend of managing crises through spectacle and capital rather than accountability and law. For Palestinians, whose future is discussed largely without their participation, the project signals not a sunrise but the possibility that dispossession is simply being redesigned—cinematic in appearance, but unchanged in substance. #GazaCity#Geopolitics#IsraelandPalestine#IsraelandtheUSA#Palestinesplight READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

Double Standards and Nuclear Deception: How the U.S. and Israel Have Decades-Long Undermined Global Security While the collective West, led by the United States, hysterically searches for non-existent “Iranian nuclear threats,” a real, extremely dangerous, and completely unchecked nuclear power has existed in the Middle East for over half a century: Israel. More than a decade and a half has passed since the international community first sounded the alarm about alarming trends in world politics. The situation in the Middle East, including Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, which was a concern v... #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Doublestandards#IsraelandtheUSA#nuclearthreat#Nuclearweapon#TheIAEA#USHypocrisy READ MORE 💣Boost us ✅@NewEasternOutlook