reza | رضا retweeted
غیرت نسبت به صدیقه طاهره س ترازوی خوی محمدی ص است
هر که را دیدی ز کوثر سرخ رو
او محمد خوست با او گیر خو
#فاطمه_زهرا
#مثنوی
reza | رضا retweeted
همین قامت شکسته و خمیده در ویلچر که به احترام سرود ملی تا جایی که می تواند برخاسته، کفایت می کند.
درس روشن و عبرتی برای همگان به ویژه ٱنانی که معنی سرود ملی را نمی دانند.
reza | رضا retweeted
One of the things the data analysts on our side obsessed over was "composition"—whether the electorate looked close enough to 2024 for Republicans to win. And despite polls that showed a Democrat blowout, the data kept on telling us the same story: in some states turnout was merely OK, in other states it was downright amazing, and in no state was it catastrophic. There was a genuine sense of optimism on our team: our people were showing up.
So, I asked the smartest data guy I know, does that mean we're going to shock the world? "No," he told me. "We might do better than the polls suggest. But the data is telling us that a lot of Trump/Vance 2024 voters are pissed and planning to vote for the other guys. Our voters are turning out, but they may not vote for us."
Well, that looks prophetic now. Our voters did show up. In Florida, for example, the electorate was 9 points more Republican than Democrat, just a couple points worse than 2024. Undoubtedly there were places we could have done better on turnout. But the main problem is not turnout. The main problem is that many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026.
There will be a lot of infighting and arguing over what happened and why that is. One of the pollsters I really respect told me that our economic messaging wasn’t sharp enough down the stretch. I’m sure that’s true.
But the real reason we lost is obvious to almost everyone.
Another pollster—one of the smartest people I know in politics, told me yesterday we’d lose the generic ballot by 13 points. I felt negative going into Tuesday, but even I was shocked by this. In his polling, he saw that a lot of Trump 2024 voters were angry and planning to vote for Democrats. He asked those voters who had abandoned us what would cause them to come back on our team. The top four answers, accounting for nearly all of the responses were:
1) End the war
2) Focus on cost of living/inflation
3) Put America First
4) Change our relationship to Israel
Our voters showed up. And the above four reasons are why many of them voted for Democrats. This is according to a pollster who nailed the results. While many spent Monday attacking Rachel Campos Duffy for calling for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict, it turns out her political advice was sound. (She’s also a great person.)
In the next few months, there's going to be a lot of gaslighting. Expect to hear any number of establishment politicians say the solution to our woes is amnesty. I'm open to the idea that we should change enforcement—by focusing more on businesses that hire illegal labor, for instance. But anyone pushing amnesty is lying to you.
The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night.
If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest.
But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there.
I remain hopeful about our country. To the people who are pissed off and want to say, “I told you so”: you’re right, you did tell us so. Take that energy into electing Republicans who share your worldview. To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let’s take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country.
reza | رضا retweeted
☀️امام علی علیه السلام☀️
🔅 بدى را از سينۀ ديگران، با كندن آن از سينۀ خود، ريشه كن نما.
.
اُحْصُدِ اَلشَّرَّ مِنْ صَدْرِ غَيْرِكَ بِقَلْعِهِ مِنْ صَدْرِكَ.
📚نهج البلاغه
t.me/sokhan_sadid/1095
reza | رضا retweeted
Trump is reportedly planning to restart war with Iran after the election.
Some of us have been briefed on the war plan. And while I cannot disclose any details, I can say this: the plan is insane. It will not achieve objectives and will set off a new cycle of escalation.
reza | رضا retweeted
If I were on active duty with the U.S. military at this moment, I would consider an order by Trump to use a nuclear weapon against Iran as unlawful and refusal to obey such an order is, not only permitted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but required.
@TuckerCarlson
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.
Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.
To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.
The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.
And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.
We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.
Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.
They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.
One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
reza | رضا retweeted
آنهایی که طرفدار امثال #شجاعی می‌مانند خود گمراهی را برگزیده‌اند. چون اگر فراری از کذب، و دنبال حقیقت باشند هدایت خواهند شد. 👇
حقیقتا دیگه سکوت در مقابل جریان های انحرافی مهدویت آن هم در پوشش انقلابی گری جایز نیست....
دم محمد علی گرم!
#توهمات_آخرالزمانی
reza | رضا retweeted
نظر استاد محمدحسن الهی بابت سخنان شجاعی:
نسبت شهوت به روضه و مسجد دادن هرگز تجمعات را بیشتر نمیکند
با گاف‌هایی که از او سراغ دارم باور نمیکنم حتی دلسوز میدان و تجمعات باشد
بچه هیئتی اگر ذره‌ای غیرت امام حسینی دارد نباید بگذارد شجاعی منبر برود
حضرت زهرا ذات و درون او را آشکار کرد
reza | رضا retweeted
Please consider calling your senator’s office and ask them to stop a massacre in Iran.
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.
Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.
To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.
The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.
And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.
We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.
Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.
They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.
One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
reza | رضا retweeted
Trump would be committing crimes against humanity. And so would everyone who goes along with this.
This cannot be allowed.
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.
Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.
To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.
The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.
And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.
We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.
Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.
They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.
One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
reza | رضا retweeted
Under pressure from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Trump administration may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran. The target would be Pickax Mountain in central Iran, where Israeli intelligence claims the Iranian government has restarted its nuclear enrichment program. No conventional weapon in the American arsenal can penetrate 300 feet of solid granite to destroy the tunnels where enrichment is supposedly taking place. The only military option is a nuclear strike. Netanyahu has been pushing hard for one. “Bibi calls Trump about it every day,” says an informed observer.
Netanyahu is cornered and desperate. After last week’s election results, he can’t form a government unless Trump intervenes directly in Israeli politics and brokers a deal with other parties that gives Netanyahu 61 seats in the Knesset. Otherwise, he is out as prime minister and on his way to ignominy, investigations and possibly jail. Netanyahu must stay close to Trump. He needs this war.
To that end, he’s applied maximum pressure to his closest allies in the administration, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and CENTCOM commander Brad Cooper. Both oppose a negotiated settlement to the war they’ve so grievously mismanaged; both are pushing to restart major combat operations. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA director John Ratcliffe are also following Netanyahu’s lead, as are leaders of the Democratic Party. In a recent meeting on the subject, former president Barack Obama said he opposes the current Iran peace deal being drafted in Doha.
The rest of America’s longtime allies in the Middle East are terrified by the prospect of more war. On September 27th, Netanyahu flew secretly to Abu Dhabi to enlist the UAE in his lobbying effort for a final attack on Iran. The Emiratis refused. After eight months of conflict, Gulf economies are teetering. So are global energy and fertilizer markets. They won’t recover soon. Globally, there are a total of about 850 supertankers used to transport oil from producers to the rest of the world. In October alone, 11 of them were badly damaged in Hormuz. At this pace, a global depression is imminent. A nuclear strike would radically accelerate the destruction. Fallout from a ground explosion at Pickax Mountain would contaminate the Persian Gulf, poisoning the water supply for 100 million people.
And those are just some of the immediate consequences for the region. The rest of the world is every bit as exposed. No country other than the United States has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Some would like to. An American nuclear attack on Iran would set a new precedent. The Russians have already told at least two other governments that an American nuclear strike on Iran would free them to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. Pakistan and India would be tempted to do the same against each other, as would North Korea against Seoul. After the first nuclear strike, World War Three is inevitable. That war would be short and final.
We’ve been sleepwalking toward this moment for months. Since February, the administration has quietly rewritten America’s nuclear doctrine to make first use of so-called “battlefield nukes” easier and therefore more likely. No one in Washington in either party seems bothered by this. Now we’re on the brink of it.
Close observers say Trump is likely to decide by next weekend whether or not to use nuclear weapons. That would be November 7, six days from now. To his credit, he’s hesitating. At the moment, Trump is listening to his vice president, JD Vance, and to his envoy and friend Steve Witkoff, both of whom argue a deal with Iran can be made.
They’re right, though it won’t be simple. The Iranians are famously frustrating to negotiate with under any circumstances, and elements of that government have become more radical since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his family were killed in February. After decades of isolation, even relatively moderate Iranian leaders seem confused by how decisions are made in the West. (There is a widespread belief in Tehran, for example, that the United States government controls Israel.) But overall, people who have spoken to decision-makers in Iran say there is consensus there that more war is bad for everyone and a deal is worth making.
One group that hasn’t been consulted so far is the global population — the hundreds of millions of people who will be killed along with their children if Trump is pushed by Netanyahu into launching a nuclear strike next week. Now would be the time for them to speak up.
reza | رضا retweeted
حقیقتا دیگه سکوت در مقابل جریان های انحرافی مهدویت آن هم در پوشش انقلابی گری جایز نیست....
دم محمد علی گرم!
#توهمات_آخرالزمانی
reza | رضا retweeted
هشدار صریح جناب آیت الله کریمی جهرمی حفظه الله به سخنان خطیب هتاک به ساحت اهل بیت علیهم السلام
[ فردا نگید شما در حدی نیستید که شجاعی رو نقد کنید چون ما حرف علما و اهل تحقیق را تکرار می کنیم. ]
reza | رضا retweeted
The Walk Away option:
The President can avoid another round of diplomatic frustrations and dangerous escalation by simply declaring victory and walking away. President Trump has already laid the groundwork for this scenario; each time he’s discussed the war and listed off the number of Iranian capabilities we’ve destroyed, he’s messaging a win.
Per his own statements, the war ends when Trump says it’s over.
Now is the perfect time for him to say it’s over.
By pulling our blockade from the Gulf & our troops out of our remaining bases in the region, we end the conflict kinetically while simultaneously (finally) depriving Iran a key point of leverage: actionable military targets to strike. We essentially force Iran to reopen the SOH because they can no longer reasonably justify attacking ships without an active aggressor to blame.
The Iranians have demonstrated that they care deeply about public opinion—therefore, once we lift the blockade, they’re likely to engage in serious talks with the Gulf states to come up with an arrangement that quickly opens the SOH.
We then use economic leverage to our advantage: we offer incremental sanctions relief on Iranian oil to make opening SOH a non-negotiable for the Iranians. While President Trump takes a victory lap about having ended the war & ensuring that Iran won’t have a nuclear weapon, our diplomats can quietly work with our Gulf allies and the Iranians to negotiate a workable peace plan that ensures the SOH stays open.
Right now Iranian leaders are unable to make many concessions with the U.S. threatening another round of strikes.
The Iranian people rallied around the hardliners in their government after we killed the former supreme leader & members of his family including children, and the tragic bombing of a girl’s school. If you understand basic human nature, you’ll understand why all of this has had a radicalizing effect on their population. Now, many Iranians believe that the only acceptable path forward, for the sake of their national pride and to deter future attacks, is by forcing a badly blooded U.S. retreat from the region.
Our walking away from the conflict will provide Iranian leadership a symbolic victory they can tout to their now-galvanized people, allowing more latitude for them to eventually reach a compromise with us on bigger items, like the nuclear issue. By walking away, we buy more trade space for compromise in future negotiations that won’t be possible if we remain poised to strike Iran.
At the moment, Trump has the political power in the U.S. to sell walking away as a victory to his base. Of course, the same neocons who talked him into this war will complain and attack him, but they don’t represent a legitimate constituency.
This war is widely unpopular—ending it will be widely popular. In the long run, history will commend Trump for choosing this option.
In recognizing that the war was a mistake, and by leaving quickly before getting bogged down in a quagmire, he avoids falling into the gambler’s fallacy that ensnared many of his predecessors and got thousands of Americans killed.
There is no such thing as a short, 3-4 day military operation—if we strike Iran, they will respond. We have consistently underestimated the most basic reality: the enemy gets a vote.
There is no military option that will persuade Iran to accept the U.S.’s terms for a deal—after 8 months of failing to restore order to the chaos it caused, the administration knows this— so what is the purpose of more strikes?
If we strike Iran by targeting more of their leaders and/or energy infrastructure, Iran will retaliate by striking Gulf energy infrastructure & U.S. forces in the region. More American troops will needlessly die, & our energy prices will continue to skyrocket.
Iran’s allies & proxies—like the Houthis, Iraqi militias, & possibly Bahraini groups—will attack Saudi energy infrastructure, the BAM/Suez, & will potentially attack the governments of Kuwait & Bahrain. We’re already unable to help the Saudis deter the Houthis—if we engage in kinetic combat against Iran, we’ll be even more incapable of assisting our already-weakened allies.
More strikes won’t change the game. Walking away & declaring victory before Tuesday sets a positive tone for the elections & resets the parameters for negotiations with Iran.
President Trump can avoid the escalation trap by walking away now, before the fog of war envelops the rest of his presidency.
reza | رضا retweeted
There is no such thing as a short, 3-4 day military operation—if we strike Iran, they will respond. We have consistently underestimated the most basic reality: the enemy gets a vote.
There is no military option that will persuade Iran to accept the U.S.’s terms for a deal—after 8 months of failing to restore order to the chaos it caused, the administration knows this— so what is the purpose of more strikes?
If we strike Iran by targeting more of their leaders and/or energy infrastructure, Iran will retaliate by striking Gulf energy infrastructure & U.S. forces in the region. More American troops will needlessly die, & our energy prices will continue to skyrocket.
Iran’s allies & proxies—like the Houthis, Iraqi militias, & possibly Bahraini groups—will attack Saudi energy infrastructure, the BAM/Suez, & will potentially attack the governments of Kuwait & Bahrain. We’re already unable to help the Saudis deter the Houthis—if we engage in kinetic combat against Iran, we’ll be even more incapable of assisting our already-weakened allies.
More strikes won’t change the game. Walking away & declaring victory before Tuesday sets a positive tone for the elections & resets the parameters for negotiations with Iran.
President Trump can avoid the escalation trap by walking away now, before the fog of war envelops the rest of his presidency.
reza | رضا retweeted
INTEL Roundtable w/ Johnson & Ritter - Weekly Wrap 30-OCT teapawt.net/i/broadcasts/1qKDzWNrp…
reza | رضا retweeted
سخنرانی حافظ و قرٱن
بیستم مهر، روزحافظ، استکهلم
youtu.be/AstMoHBSqf0?si=bKJQ…
