عبدالرحمن التميمي

والله عدت الفيديو أكثر من مرة وحقيقة أول مرة أشوفه وأنا أحسب في سنة تصوير الفيديو كان له سبع سنوات من وحد المملكة بعد (31) سنة وهو في جهاد وعاش بعد سنة التصوير هذي بـ 14 سنة وتوفي رحمه الله.! وأنّا جينا على نعمة وخير وأمن وأمان من توفيق الله وصنيع هذا الرجل العظيم الله يغفر له ويرحمه لذلك يا كبر فضله علينا بعد الله.!

🇺🇸 Josh Hokit gifts Trump his chain at the White House UFC event. Respect and patriotism on full display. Trump at the Octagon with the fighters on the White House lawn. Moments like this hit different Writer: Oliver

An important framing to understand what is happening in Washington right now is that the debate is no longer primarily about the Middle East. It is increasingly about America itself. Vice President Vance’s remarks on the Iran MOU today were revealing in this regard. Vance's message was reassuring in that this is only a time-bound MOU, and the U.S. still holds all the cards and can reimpose pressure on Iran if Tehran violates its commitments. Knowing how devious this regime is, I believe the U.S. pressures on Iran will eventually snap back. This brings some hope and mitigates frustration. But beneath Vance's reassuring message lies a divide among American policymakers... not between those who believe Iran is dangerous and those who do not. Actually, everyone agrees that Iran is a threat to the U.S. as much as it is to Middle East neighbors. The divide, however, is between those who call for accommodating (rather than engaging) hostile powers, like Iran, and those who believe not every threat or hostility justifies another lengthy, costly American intervention overseas. Viewed through this lens, the central question is whether Iran can be deterred, contained, and managed without dragging the United States into another Middle East conflict that distracts from America’s economic and domestic strategic priorities. This also helps explain the growing willingness among some American leaders recently to distinguish between U.S. interests and Israeli interests; something that would have been far less common in Washington only a few years ago. The challenge, however, is that Washington has tried versions of this "containment" approach with the IRGC before. Efforts to manage the Iranian threat through diplomacy and economic incentives often ended up strengthening the regime and expanding its threat to neighboring territories, rather than moderating its behavior. I do not think the direct investments by Gulf Arab states (as suggested by VP Vance today) would make any difference in making Iran less hostile to Israel or the United States. It is an ideological hatred that neither money nor diplomacy can reverse! That is why the stakes of this very American debate, although justified, extend far beyond the current agreement to the future role of the United States in the Middle East and the nature of its relationships with both allies and adversaries across the region.