Moaty - معطي

HAMO EL MORSHEDY X KENDRICK LAMAR [MASHUP] sorry

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.

📊 كيف تغيّر ريال مدريد مع مورينهو مقارنة بتشابي ألونسو؟ الفريق أكثر مباشرة في الهجوم، باعتماد أكبر على الكرات الطويلة والعرضيات، واستحواذ أقل: • الاستحواذ: من 62.1% إلى 50.7%. • كرة طويلة كل 11.4 تمريرة، مقابل 15.4 سابقًا. • أهداف العرضيات: من 0 إلى 5. • يسمح للمنافس بنحو 19 تمريرة مقابل كل تدخل دفاعي، مقارنة بـ9.9 سابقًا، ما يشير إلى تراجع شدة الضغط. ريال مدريد يسجل أكثر.. لكنه يستقبل أهدافًا أكثر أيضًا.

Hansi Flick's Barcelona Doubling Down on Short Distances and High Mobility. FC Barcelona after the arrival of Hansi Flick has gone from being a typical team with large distances and low mobility towards a team that plays with very short distances and high mobility. The change from Lewandowski to players like Gordon and Gabriel Jesus makes this evolution towards high mobility even clearer. It is increasingly common to see teams moving away from traditional, rigid positional play, with large distances and low mobility, towards a style based on shorter distances. Xabi Alonso's Bayer Leverkusen was one of the first teams to reduce distances significantly, successfully winning the Bundesliga in 2024. Francesco Farioli said in an interview that one of the things he took from relationism was shorter distances. His Porto played with much narrower fullbacks in 2025 than before, successfully winning the Portuguese league very comfortably. Porto and Leverkusen didn't play with the same mobility as Barcelona, but simply reducing distances helped them defensively, allowing them to avoid transitions more often and concede very few goals. Hansi Flick wants to reduce distances to increase mobility. But Barcelona is focused on attacking centrally, which is quite different from Arsenal or PSG, who also use a lot of mobility but tend to do so through wide triangles rather than by looking to do it centrally. By mobility, I mean that players are continuously moving, offering a double threat: running in behind or asking for the ball to feet, while exchanging positions between them. For example, you can suddenly see Gordon, as a left winger, moving into the striker position while Gabriel Jesus moves to the left, the left fullback stays between the lines and the attacking midfielder gives support deeper. In the next situation, their positions can be mixed again. Barcelona basically does this in the left half-space and centrally. If we divide the pitch into five lanes, starting from the left, the main movements take place in lanes two and three. On the right, Lamine Yamal stays in position. Barcelona looks to overload the ball area on the left half-space or centrally, attract opponents there and then isolate Lamine Yamal on the right, allowing him to receive with less traffic. Spain used a similar idea with Baena moving inside and a striker like Oyarzabal supporting those overloads. The interesting thing about Yamal's position is that he doesn't need to provide the full width. He applies a concept called optimal width, which means staying as wide as necessary to remain a threat and force the opposing fullback to respect the possibility of a run in behind. With this idea, Yamal stays closer to the box, attracts the fullback's attention and prevents him from closing inside. It also reduces the distance he needs to cover to counter-press. If you look at the fullbacks, their positioning is also very narrow. Attacking centrally carries a risk. Losing the ball in these areas can expose the team more than losing it in wide areas. This is one of the reasons why teams like Arsenal or PSG, who use a lot of mobility try do it more through wider combinations than centrally. Flick keeps insisting on reducing distances because he knows that the only way to play with this level of mobility is to have players close enough to each other to counter-press immediately after losing the ball. In a press conference, he said: “When we analyzed the game against Girona, I always speak about positioning, the right distance between the players and the opponent. It's very important, and if you're far from that, you lose, you have to run too much, give the opponents a little bit more time to play out and this is also what kills us in the defense.” His point is clear: if Barcelona wants to play with high mobility, it needs very short distances. Otherwise, players have to run too much, giving opponents more time to escape the pressure. There is another important benefit to reducing distances. Players feel more comfortable taking risks with short combinations in congested spaces. They know that if they lose the ball, they have teammates nearby who can recover it quickly. The second attack can then be even more dangerous than the first because the opposition is more disorganized. FC Barcelona is doubling down on short distances and very high mobility, and this season's signings reflect that direction. More teams will likely adopt similar ideas in the coming seasons.

Kylian Mbappé recreated Zidane’s goal last night. 🥶🔙

🚨 How Barça could LINE-UP against PSG given the absences of Koundé, Eric and Martín.