This channel’s posts match, word for word or near enough, posts on 1 other registered channel, found by comparing text fingerprints across every channel on the register. That matching has been checked by hand against the live Telegram pages and found reliable — 0 wrong of 45 pairs re-read.
Which channel, if either, published first is deliberately not shown. The same hand-check found that reading wrong 18 of 45 times — 60%, no better than a coin flip — because it depends on how deep our own crawl happened to reach into each channel’s history, not on when the content was actually first posted. This list is ordered by subscriber count, the same as every other listing on this site, never by which channel we think came first. Word-for-word matching has several ordinary explanations besides copying — a channel mirroring itself, an unattributed repost, or two channels independently repeating the same wire story — and this measurement cannot tell those apart. How this is measured.
4 measurements spanning 6 days, net -5. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 4,736–4,744 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Aug 2026, 07:15
4,737
-3
10 Aug 2026, 09:20
4,740
-3
7 Aug 2026, 10:53
4,743
+1
7 Aug 2026, 00:45
4,742
first reading
Engagement
43 posts held, back to 4 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 7 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
4.15%
avg views ÷ 4,737 subscribers
Avg views / post
197
43 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.622%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
43
of 43 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 9 of 43 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 11 August 2026
Posts held
43 (4 August 2026 – 11 August 2026)
Views total
8,454
Reactions total
9
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
12 Aug 2026, 05:24 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
25m 46s
Average length
4m 18s
Measured directly from 6 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
9 reactions across 6 posts, in 4 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 66.7% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
6
66.7%
👎
1
11.1%
🔥
1
11.1%
🤣
1
11.1%
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 9 of the 43 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 9reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 43 most recent posts we hold, published 4 August 2026 to 11 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
♨️ تأسیس «ناتوی اسلامی» در مکه؛ چرخش راهبردی ریاض، آنکارا و اسلامآباد در بحبوحهی نبرد ایران
🔻 تحلیل«استیو مولمان» در مجله نیوزویک، به کالبدشکافی امضای «پیمان دفاع مشترک مکه» میان عربستان سعودی، ترکیه و پاکستان میپردازد. طبق بند محوری این پیمان—که یادآور اصل ۵ ناتو است—«حمله به هر یک از سه کشور، حمله به تمامی اعضا تلقی خواهد شد». این اقدام بیسابقه که پس از ماهها رایزنی نهایی شد، ناشی از سرریز جنگ ایران و آمریکا،…
♨️دوراهی دشوار GCC در تنگه هرمز؛ پذیرش نفوذ ایران یا بازگشت جنگ
🔻بنابه گزارش وال استریت ژورنال، کشورهای شورای همکاری واقعیت جدید کنترل ایران بر تنگه هرمز را پذیرفتهاند.
🔻به نوشته WSJ، تولیدکنندگان انرژی خلیج فارس به این جمعبندی رسیدهاند که کنترل ایران بر تنگه ممکن است دائمی شود؛ وضعیتی که میتواند صادرات نفت و گاز منطقه و در نتیجه عرضه جهانی انرژی را مدت نامحدودی مختل کند. با این حال، آنها نگراناند که گزینه جای…
♨️تعویق دوباره راهاندازی پالایشگاه جازان؛ فشار بر بازار جهانی سوخت افزایش مییابد
🔻شرکت سعودی آرامکو ازسرگیری فعالیت پالایشگاه نفت جازان را به ۳۰ آگوست موکول کرده است. پیشتر قرار بود این پالایشگاه ۱۵ آگوست به مدار بازگردد. پالایشگاه جازان از ۲۷ ژوئیه و پس از حمله یمن متوقف است.
🔻انصارالله یمن روز گذشته نیز بار دیگر به این پالایشگاه حمله کرد؛ وزارت انرژی عربستان ضمن تأیید آتشسوزی اما درباره وضعیت عملیاتی پالایشگا…
♨️ ادعایی در بوتهی آزمون؛ آیا پیمان دفاعی سهجانبه قادر به ایجاد بازدارندگی در برابر ایران است؟
🔻 گزارش «عنبرین زمان» در المانیتور، به کالبدشکافی امضای رسمی پیمان دفاعی سهجانبه میان عربستان سعودی، ترکیه و پاکستان در مکه مکرمه میپردازد. این پیمان که دومین ارتش بزرگ ناتو (ترکیه)، تنها قدرت هستهای جهان اسلام (پاکستان) و خادم حرمین شریفین (سعودی) را در قالب یک «بند دفاع جمعی» کنار هم قرار داده، واکنشی مستقیم به آسیب…
♨️ هرمز و حدود دکترین «فشار حداکثری»؛ عجز قدرت نظامی از خلق ثبات سیاسی
🔻 تحلیل «سارا نویمان» در پایگاه مونیتور ژئوپلتیکی، به کالبدشکافی بنبست سیاست خارجی آمریکا در خلیج فارس میپردازد. نویمان استدلال میکند اقدامات موشکی اخیر ایران در توقیف و بازگرداندن نفتکشها در تنگه هرمز، این حقیقت تلخ را به واشینگتن یادآور شد که علیرغم سالها تحریم فلجکننده و ماهها درگیری مستقیم نظامی، تهران کماکان قادر است هرمز را به اهرم …
♨️بستهشدن تنگه هرمز سود ادنوکگاز را به نصف رساند
🔻شرکت ادنوک گاز امارات در سهماهه دوم ۲۰۲۶ با افت ۵۲ درصدی سود خالص مواجه شد و سود آن به ۶۶۵ میلیون دلار رسید؛ در حالی که این رقم در مدت مشابه سال گذشته ۱.۳۹ میلیارد دلار بود. کاهش فروش ناشی از بستهشدن تنگه هرمز و اختلال در حملونقل دریایی، عامل اصلی افت سود اعلام شده است.
🔻ادنوک گاز انتظار دارد اختلالات تنگه هرمز در سهماهه سوم نیز ادامه داشته باشد و سود خالص این…
♨️جدال سعودیها و اماراتیها بر سر توافق مکه
🔻«توافق مکه» به یکی دیگر از موضوعات داغ جدال و تنش رسانهای میان چهرههای سعودی و اماراتی تبدیل شده است.
🔻عبدالعزیز التویجری، از مقامات پیشین سعودی، در واکنش به انتقادات عبدالخالق عبدالله، تحلیلگر اماراتی، از توافق مکه میان عربستان، ترکیه و پاکستان، در شبکه X نوشت: عبدالله تاکنون ۱۱ بار درباره این توافق موضع گرفته و با ایجاد تردید، آن را تحریف کرده است.
🔻التویجری در ادا…
⭕️ آیا عمان شریک ایران در عوارضگیری دریایی است؟
بنا بر اعلام رسانههای ایرانی، توافق میان ایران و عمان بر سر تنگه هرمز تنها چند روز، اگر نگوییم چند ساعت، فاصله دارد...
🔗 ادامه مطلب:
syaaq.com/38376
🏷
@PGulfStudies
♨️ چالش دکترین نامتقارن تهران در آزمون پیمان مکه؛ ائتلاف سهگانهی ریاض-آنکارا-اسلامآباد
🔻 تحلیل وبگاه المانیتور، به کالبدشکافی امضای «پیمان دفاعی سهجانبهی مکه» میان عربستان سعودی، ترکیه و پاکستان در ۷ آگوست ۲۰۲۶ میپردازد. این پیمان که شامل «بند دفاع جمعی» (تلقی حمله به یک عضو بهعنوان حمله به هر سه کشور) است، واکنشی به سرریز جنگ آمریکا-ایران، حملات مجدد انصارالله به شریانهای نفتی و ابهام در تعهدات امنیتی واشین…
♨️ عبور سرمایهگذاران از مخاطرات جنگ؛ جهش جذب سرمایهگذاری خارجی در عمان
🔻 گزارش تحلیلی و اقتصادی «مت اسمیت» در وبگاه AGBI، به کالبدشکافی دلایل جذب سرمایه و ثبات اقتصادی سلطنت عمان در میانهی بحران منطقهای میپردازد. اسمیت استدلال میکند علیرغم سرریز جنگ به منطقه، اصلاحات تجاری ساختاری، تنوعبخشی به اقتصاد و «موقعیت استراتژیک عمان در خارج از تنگه هرمز» موجب شده سرمایهگذاران بینالمللی ریسکهای نظامی را نادیده گرف…
♨️۸۶ درصد ذخایر پاتریوت عربستان در ۳۸ روز مصرف شد
🔻بنابه گزارش رویترز به نقل از مرکز مطالعات راهبردی و بینالمللی (CSIS)، عربستان در ۳۸ روز نخست درگیریها حدود ۲۴۰۰ فروند از مجموع ۲۸۰۰ موشک رهگیر پاتریوت PAC-3 خود (= ۸۶٪ از کل ذخایرش) را استفاده کرده؛ و ذخایر این کشور تا ماه آوریل به حدود ۴۰۰ موشک کاهش یافته است.
🔻همچنین کشورهای دیگر خلیج فارس نیز مقادیر مشابهی از ذخایر پاتریوت را استفاده کردهاند و ذخایر آمریکا نی…
Showing the 12 most recent of 43 posts we hold for @PGulfStudies. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 418,655 of 1,345,403entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 6 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 13 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“مطالعات خلیج فارس” (@PGulfStudies), 4,737 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/PGulfStudies.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.