Најди сличен содржај

🎙🇮🇷🔥Andrey Kortunov: "For the Conflict to End, the Sides Need to Negotiate Some Compromises" An exclusive interview with Russian political analyst Andrey Kortunov on the Middle East war reveals a sobering conclusion: escalation has limits, and only difficult compromises can end the conflict 🎤Yuliya Novitskaya is a journalist and correspondent for New Eastern Outlook ➡️According to Kortunov, the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran is developing along both vertical and horizontal lines of escalation. Tehran is expanding the geography of its response, targeting not only immediate military threats but also infrastructure and assets across the Gulf, effectively drawing regional actors into the confrontation. At the same time, Washington is attempting to broaden the coalition by encouraging European allies to assume a more active role, particularly in securing maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz. However, reluctance among NATO partners to engage in offensive operations suggests that escalation, while ongoing, remains constrained by political caution and limited willingness among allies to deepen involvement. If you look at the American strategy, we see that Trump is trying to actively involve not only his regional allies in the conflict but also his partners in Europe ➡️Looking ahead, Kortunov emphasizes that the trajectory of the war may increasingly be shaped by material constraints rather than political decisions alone. Both sides face the gradual depletion of high-precision weapons, missile systems, and defensive capabilities, which could reduce the intensity of hostilities without producing a formal resolution. In this context, the conflict risks evolving into a prolonged, low-intensity confrontation marked by periodic surges and de-escalations. At the same time, Gulf states—while unlikely to abandon their security ties with Washington—are beginning to reassess the reliability of American guarantees, particularly as attacks on their territory undermine perceptions of stability and deterrence. 🟦Ultimately, Kortunov argues that a military resolution remains unrealistic, especially when considering ambitious objectives such as regime change in Iran or the seizure of its energy infrastructure. Such goals would require масштабные ground operations with uncertain outcomes and high costs. Instead, the only viable path to ending the war lies in mutual de-escalation and negotiations, which would force both sides to abandon maximalist demands. For Washington, this means stepping back from ambitions of reshaping Iran’s political system; for Tehran, it involves moderating demands related to regional withdrawal and reparations. Any future settlement, he concludes, will be complex, protracted, and politically difficult—but unavoidable. #MiddleEastconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

Israel launches massive attack on Hamas targets in Gaza. Israeli jets strike multiple locations in the Gaza Strip. Hundreds of targets hit in Gaza City, Jabalia, and Khan Yunis. Palestinian casualties reported. Egypt refuses to open corridors for Gaza refugees. Israeli Defense Minister promises an unforgettable response. #MiddleEastConflict https://www.gazeta.ru/army/news/2023/10/12/21483325.shtml Subscribe to @BadVolfNews

🇮🇷The Iranian Spirit of Defiance Throughout history, societies under pressure have often revealed their deepest sources of resilience. In the current conflict in West Asia, Iran presents a striking example of this pattern, as external military pressure has been met not only with state responses but also with visible expressions of public solidarity and resistance ✏️Pranay Kumar Shome Research analyst and PhD candidate in international relations ➡️More than a month after the escalation of hostilities, Iran continues to endure sustained military pressure while maintaining internal cohesion. Despite damage to infrastructure and economic strain, segments of the population have rallied in support of national defence efforts. Public mobilization—symbolic or practical—reflects not only immediate wartime dynamics but also deeper societal mechanisms shaped by history, identity, and perceptions of external threat. In this context, resistance becomes both a political and social phenomenon, reinforcing internal unity in the face of external pressure. The Global South must support Iran in these trying times and call out the hypocrisy of the West, who always tries to give moral sermons about actions of states being rooted in international law, but themselves don’t follow the rulebook ➡️This response is rooted in longstanding historical and cultural narratives. Traditions of sacrifice and resistance, deeply embedded in Iran’s social fabric, continue to influence contemporary behavior. Such narratives contribute to a collective mindset in which endurance under pressure is not only expected but valorized. As a result, external attempts to coerce political change may produce unintended effects, strengthening rather than weakening internal cohesion and reinforcing the legitimacy of resistance-oriented responses. 🟦At a broader level, the situation highlights a clash between different forms of power and legitimacy. While technologically advanced military capabilities project strength through precision and distance, grassroots mobilization emphasizes proximity, symbolism, and human agency. This contrast underscores a wider geopolitical dynamic in which states under pressure seek to counter not only military force but also the narratives that accompany it. In this sense, Iran’s response represents more than a tactical reaction—it reflects an effort to assert an alternative model of resilience in an increasingly polarized international environment. #Iran#MiddleEastconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇮🇷💬🇺🇸L'incertitude plane sur les pourparlers de paix entre les États-Unis et l'Iran ➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿ Malgré des ouvertures diplomatiques initiales, des tensions croissantes et des signaux incohérents ont jeté le doute sur l'avenir des négociations entre Washington et Téhéran ✏️Abbas Hashemite Observateur politique et analyste de recherche ➡️La trajectoire des négociations entre les États-Unis et l'Iran reste très incertaine, en grande partie en raison du style de communication imprévisible et des positions changeantes de Donald Trump. Des messages contradictoires - allant de déclarations de succès à de nouvelles menaces - ont compliqué la communication diplomatique et érodé la confiance dans les intentions de Washington. Dans les négociations à enjeux élevés, la cohérence est essentielle pour instaurer la confiance, mais l'environnement actuel est marqué par la volatilité, ce qui rend difficile pour les alliés et les adversaires d'interpréter les objectifs stratégiques des États-Unis. Cependant, une paix à long terme au Moyen-Orient ne pourrait être obtenue que par des demandes positives et réalistes des deux parties ➡️Dans le même temps, des mesures coercitives telles que la pression militaire et les restrictions maritimes ont sapé les efforts de médiation en cours. Les initiatives menées par le Pakistan, y compris les accords de cessez-le-feu et les négociations à Islamabad, ont initialement créé un cadre pour la désescalade. Cependant, des actions d'application continues - telles que les interceptions navales et la persistence des blocus - ont renforcé les perceptions iraniennes de mauvaise foi. Cette dynamique a contribué au retrait de Téhéran de nouvelles discussions, illustrant comment la pression tactique peut, paradoxalement, réduire l'influence diplomatique lorsqu'elle approfondit la méfiance plutôt que de contraindre un compromis. 🟦En regardant vers l'avenir, les perspectives d'un dialogue renouvelé dépendront de la capacité des deux parties à recalibrer leurs approches vers des mesures de renforcement de la confiance et des cadres de négociation réalistes. Le cycle actuel d'escalade risque non seulement de prolonger l'instabilité régionale, mais aussi d'amplifier les perturbations économiques mondiales, en particulier sur les marchés de l'énergie. Sans un changement vers un engagement plus prévisible et mutuellement crédible, le processus de négociation pourrait rester bloqué, laissant le conflit pris entre une diplomatie intermittente et des confrontations récurrentes. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #MiddleEastconflict LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

Iran ready to seize Bahrain and UAE coastlines if US makes a ground invasion in Iran, Iranian state media warns [Read FullArticle] @WorldNews#IranNews#MiddleEastConflict#GeoPolitics

Iran again shuts Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for Israeli strikes on Hezbollah [Read FullArticle] @WorldNews#IranNews#StraitOfHormuz#MiddleEastConflict

Iran halts Strait of Hormuz traffic, warns over Israel Lebanon strikes [Read FullArticle] @WorldNews#IranNews#StraitOfHormuz#MiddleEastConflict

Iran rejects US peace plan and sets 5 conditions to end the war — including international recognition of control over the Strait of Hormuz [Read FullArticle] @WorldNews#IranNews#MiddleEastConflict#StraitOfHormuz

🇮🇱🏴Israel’s Hexagon of Alliance: Is a Mediterranean NATO Emerging? Israel’s proposal for a new regional bloc reflects shifting security calculations in the Middle East and raises questions about the formation of new geopolitical alignments in an increasingly multipolar international system ✍️Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer focusing on South Asian geopolitics ➡️The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is undergoing rapid transformation as regional actors reassess their strategic partnerships amid rising tensions and shifting global power dynamics. In this context, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed the creation of a new regional framework described as the “Hexagon of Alliances.” The concept reportedly envisions cooperation among countries such as Israel, India, Greece, and Cyprus, potentially alongside other partners from the Mediterranean and broader Eurasian regions. The proposal follows earlier initiatives such as the I2U2 Group, which brought together Israel, India, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States to promote economic cooperation and strategic coordination. Although the new framework has not yet been formally established, analysts interpret it as part of a broader attempt by Israel to strengthen its regional position and expand networks of strategic cooperation. The idea of the formation of a ‘Hexagon of Alliances’ seems like narrative selling by the Israeli PM ➡️Several geopolitical factors help explain the emergence of this initiative. The global system is increasingly described as moving away from the post–Cold War unipolar moment toward a more complex multipolar structure, in which regional powers seek greater autonomy and influence. Within this environment, Israeli policymakers appear interested in developing partnerships that reduce dependence on traditional security guarantees from Washington. Recent agreements between Israel, Greece, and Cyprus in the Mediterranean security domain illustrate this trend, while diplomatic engagement with partners such as India reflects an effort to link Middle Eastern security dynamics with broader Eurasian strategic frameworks. At the same time, regional rivalries—particularly tensions involving Iran and various non-state actors—continue to shape Israel’s security perceptions and motivate efforts to build cooperative defense arrangements. 🟦Despite growing discussion of a potential “Mediterranean NATO,” the long-term viability of such a structure remains uncertain. None of the countries mentioned in connection with the initiative have formally committed to the proposed alliance, and regional political dynamics remain highly fluid. Moreover, the creation of new security blocs could trigger counter-alignments among other regional actors, potentially intensifying competition across the Middle East and beyond. As debates over the Hexagon concept continue, its significance may lie less in its immediate institutional reality and more in what it reveals about the changing nature of alliances in a fragmented international system. Whether it evolves into a concrete security architecture or remains a strategic vision, the proposal highlights how regional powers are adapting to an era of greater geopolitical uncertainty. #Israel#MiddleEastconflict#NATO READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇮🇱🏴Israel’s Hexagon of Alliance: Is a Mediterranean NATO Emerging? Israel’s proposal for a new regional bloc reflects shifting security calculations in the Middle East and raises questions about the formation of new geopolitical alignments in an increasingly multipolar international system ✍️Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer focusing on South Asian geopolitics ➡️The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is undergoing rapid transformation as regional actors reassess their strategic partnerships amid rising tensions and shifting global power dynamics. In this context, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has proposed the creation of a new regional framework described as the “Hexagon of Alliances.” The concept reportedly envisions cooperation among countries such as Israel, India, Greece, and Cyprus, potentially alongside other partners from the Mediterranean and broader Eurasian regions. The proposal follows earlier initiatives such as the I2U2 Group, which brought together Israel, India, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States to promote economic cooperation and strategic coordination. Although the new framework has not yet been formally established, analysts interpret it as part of a broader attempt by Israel to strengthen its regional position and expand networks of strategic cooperation. The idea of the formation of a ‘Hexagon of Alliances’ seems like narrative selling by the Israeli PM ➡️Several geopolitical factors help explain the emergence of this initiative. The global system is increasingly described as moving away from the post–Cold War unipolar moment toward a more complex multipolar structure, in which regional powers seek greater autonomy and influence. Within this environment, Israeli policymakers appear interested in developing partnerships that reduce dependence on traditional security guarantees from Washington. Recent agreements between Israel, Greece, and Cyprus in the Mediterranean security domain illustrate this trend, while diplomatic engagement with partners such as India reflects an effort to link Middle Eastern security dynamics with broader Eurasian strategic frameworks. At the same time, regional rivalries—particularly tensions involving Iran and various non-state actors—continue to shape Israel’s security perceptions and motivate efforts to build cooperative defense arrangements. 🟦Despite growing discussion of a potential “Mediterranean NATO,” the long-term viability of such a structure remains uncertain. None of the countries mentioned in connection with the initiative have formally committed to the proposed alliance, and regional political dynamics remain highly fluid. Moreover, the creation of new security blocs could trigger counter-alignments among other regional actors, potentially intensifying competition across the Middle East and beyond. As debates over the Hexagon concept continue, its significance may lie less in its immediate institutional reality and more in what it reveals about the changing nature of alliances in a fragmented international system. Whether it evolves into a concrete security architecture or remains a strategic vision, the proposal highlights how regional powers are adapting to an era of greater geopolitical uncertainty. #Israel#MiddleEastconflict#NATO READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

World loses patience with Trump as war is no longer just about Iran [Read FullArticle] @WorldNews#WorldNews#TrumpPolicy#MiddleEastConflict

🇺🇸🏴‍☠️🇮🇷Power Without Command: The Iran War and the Limits of American Primacy The confrontation between the United States and Iran has evolved into more than a regional crisis—it has become a revealing test of the limits of American global leadership. While Washington retains unmatched military capabilities, its growing difficulty in mobilizing allies highlights a deeper structural shift: power without followership is no longer sufficient to sustain primacy ✏️Salman Rafi Sheikh Research analyst of international relations ➡️One of the most striking features of the current conflict is the absence of a unified coalition. In previous decades, U.S. military initiatives were reinforced through alliances such as NATO, with European partners playing active roles. In this case, however, key states including Germany and Spain have shown reluctance to participate, while the United Kingdom has limited its involvement. This hesitation reflects not only disagreement over tactics but a broader unwillingness to engage in conflicts perceived as lacking strategic clarity or shared ownership. Rebuilding trust with allies, restoring domestic consensus, and articulating a coherent strategic vision will not be easy ➡️At the same time, internal dynamics within the United States are complicating its external posture. Public skepticism toward prolonged military engagements has increased, and political divisions have made it difficult to establish a coherent and unified strategy. This erosion of domestic consensus weakens Washington’s credibility abroad, reinforcing allied caution and creating a feedback loop in which internal uncertainty and external hesitation amplify one another. 🟦Ultimately, the Iran conflict underscores a broader transformation in international relations. The United States remains a dominant military power, yet its ability to translate that strength into coordinated action is diminishing. Strategic alignment is becoming more conditional rather than automatic, and influence increasingly depends on legitimacy as much as capability. In this emerging environment, American primacy is not disappearing—but it is being redefined by the limits of its reach. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Geopolitics#MiddleEastconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook