Part 2 Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down ...

[admin]

The Complex Geopolitics Of The U.S.-Israeli War On Iran w/ Pepe Escobar
Reason2Resist with Dimitri Lascaris
Apr 21, 2026

Dimitri Lascaris speaks with independent journalist Pepe Escobar about the complex relationships and interests that are shaping the international response to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.



Transcript

Good day. This is Dimmitri Lasceras coming to you from Kalamata, Greece on April 20th, 2026 for Reason to Resist.
Today, we're very pleased to be joined by Pepe Escobar. Pepe hardly needs an introduction. But for those few of you who might not be familiar with his
groundbreaking journalism, Pepe is a Brazilian journalist known for his work in alternative media and geopolitical analysis. Uh he has reported extensively
from regions around the world most notably west and central Asia and has contributed to numerous international
publications over the years. Uh just a few of them I'll mention Asia Times, Al Jazzida and RT. Thank you so much for joining us today Pepe.
My pleasure Dimmitri. Uh greetings from Buddhist Southeast Asia peaceful latitude.
I hope they're still finding the capacity to meditate in these troubled times in our Yes, we we we we badly need it, right?
Meditation and massage,
especially here in Greece. So, Pepe, I'd like to begin uh by just reminding people to like and share this video if
they find it to be informative. Please join uh our subscription base if you haven't already done so. Help us to expand the reach of our uh resistance journalism. So with that, Pepe, uh,
after US naval forces attacked an Iranian cargo ship in international waters yesterday, uh, by all
appearances, the so-called ceasefire is hanging by a thread. And first off, I like your impressions, uh, your assessment of why you think the Trump
regime took the highly provocative step at this critical moment of attacking a civilian, uh, Iranian vessel in international waters during a ceasefire.
Wow. Because essentially they have no strategy.
Uh the whole strategy after the thing went completely sour in the first 24 to
after the decapitation strike against a Kam and and the leadership.
Everything is inside the head of a psychopath sociopath rattled with acute
dementia already and with his sidekick as a tattooed
drunken former platoon commander in Iraq. How can you have a strategy uh
when you are facing a probably the I would say the the geopolitical crossroads of the 21st century in front
of us everywhere. This is the crux of the war between the declining empire and
Eurasia as a whole. So they never had a strategy uh to start with. Uh their
tactics are appalling as everyone can see. uh even Americans in fact and now
when we are theoretically in the middle of the road towards Islamabad 2.
Islamabad one was not a total disaster because there's a little window open and
the Pakistanis of course they are doing their best to keep it open towards Islamabad too. So when we are on the brink of a possible Islamabad too by the
way it would be today but obviously there's no Iranian delegation in Islamabad
they come up with an attack against a civilian Iranian tanker coming from a
Chinese port we don't know what's inside but it may be something they they
focused their lasers on the tuska because they are ab almost absolute absolutely sure that in the cargo
they're going to find a sodium perchlorate which is an essential component solid fuel for Iranian
ballistic missiles that that that's the the tuska riddle let's put it this but
why do it now uh breaking the ceasefire because as you mentioned correctly this is an act of war in international waters
what do they expect to gain out of So obviously there's no strategy. Obviously there's nobody uh national security council, retired Pentagon generals,
whatever saying look let's wait there is the end of the ceasefire and there is lamabat too. Maybe maybe Vance and Kalib can come to some sort of agreement. No.
It it it's out of the blue. It it's so,
you know, it it baffles us because it's ch so childish in geopolitical terms. Uh these people are not even amateurs, you know,
they're they're typical pigeons kicking uh the chessboard completely, you know. So, so yes, please go ahead. Go ahead.
I just want to add one thing and please feel free to disagree with me, although I suspect you'll be in agreement. Even
if that cargo ship had jet fuel or just lethal armaments, it could be, you know,
man pads, it could be uh, you know, um,
missile components, it could be any number of things, air defense systems.
There's absolutely no violation of international law involved there. The Iranians as the victims of an aggression are perfectly entitled to call upon
friendly states to help them defend themselves. uh and so that would not even provide a justification for an attack on the vessel if in fact they found you know armaments or jet fuel,
rocket fuel, whatever it may be. I assume you uh you share that you Pepe. Is that fair?
No, I yeah of course I agree with you and of course this uh uh for instance what Russia is sending to we don't we
don't have the the nobody has these details. This is Ministry of Defense kind of secrets information. They have uh uh the famous Astraan Theran shuttle.
It's a never on surface. No way. And what the Chinese sent to to uh uh the
Iranians is same thing. These are cargo planes coming from from China. It's a completely different story. They will
never risk sending it through uh the Indian Ocean. No way.
So there's no this an extra no justification for something that from the start is an act of war. Right.
Correct.
So let let's switch to the Red Sea for a moment. Uh Iran's government has threatened to call in its Yemeni ally
and Saladalah uh to close the Babel Mand strait which connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aiden. And the Babel Mandev
strait is certainly one of the most important check choke points in international maritime commerce. You were in Yemen uh about one year ago I
understand and you reported extensively on the ground there. Uh I think you may also have had the opportunity to speak to Yemeni government officials. What is
what was your assessment at the time about the situation on the ground? the capacity of Ansatala after the the the horrendous uh attacks it had to sustain
from the Israelis and the Americans to contribute to a closure of the strait.
Uh and do you think that we are about to see the entry of Ansat Alai into this conflict? They've been uh as you noted
before we started today rather quiet uh during the past six weeks. What's your assessment of where they're likely to go?
uh they are in a wait and see mode at the moment. It's fascinating how quiet
they are. Uh we we don't see uh uh their spokesman going. By the way, this guy is a pop idol all across the global south.
You know, we we met him. Can you believe that he visit us in our hotel in Sana
last year? He spent with us and we were desperate. We were why you're here. The Americans may know
that you're here. And the guy was unflapable, cool as a cucumber. Very well prepared. In fact, the whole
Ansarala leadership. We met many of them in Sana. And then they took us to Sada.
Why? Because they wanted to show us the birthplace of Ansar in the mountains of
Sada. It's about 120 140 kilometers from the Yemen Saudi border. So when you see
the geology of Sada, you understand it's it's a valley surrounded by mountains. It's perfect for guerrilla warfare.
That's where they learn how to how to do their Yemen version of Vietnamese guerrilla warfare. Very well
educated people, very wellprepared. They explained for instance the tradition in
engineering mathematics and physics since the time of Mao.
Can you believe it that this is something that I didn't know at the time? They took us to a uh there is a a Chinese obelisk on the hills overlooking Sana.
Uh and do you know what this obelisk is commemorating?
Chinese workers during the Mao era that were sent to Yemen to do public works.
Very few people in the west know about this. You know, you only know something about this when you go there, you know.
So, so this very close link between Yemen and China dates from the late 50s60s already. Same thing with Russia.
So they told us look for instance I went to the university in Sada it's a first class un by the way bombed by the Saudis
years ago then they rebuild it. So there is a long tradition of top level uh mass
and science for decades and of course with help from the Soviet Union and from
China. So that explains why they the great deal of their industrial military complex is developed by themselves. Of
course they had help from Iran. There's no question about that. But for instance, they've developed their own missiles, their own ballistic missiles.
So and they uh everything when you have a conversation with them, it's fascinating because it's not only about military matters or geopolitics.
there's always a very strong moral,
11 minutesethic, spiritual component. For instance, they frame their uh defense of
Gaza in a very very complex multi-level way and especially they are they are
morally obliged to defend our brothers the way they they frame it, you know. So
it's it's it's a it's very sophisticated and well but it's no wonder they are the Quran prophet Muhammad I think there are
more than 40 mentions of Yemenes in the in the Quran they practice original
Islam the real pure 7th century Islam not the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and there's no wonder why the Ahabis hate
them they have no bloody culture Yemen is a very powerful ancient culture These
are the navigators who brought Islam to here to Southeast Asia. The first navigators were Yemenes that arrived in
12 minutesThailand, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, you know. So, so it's on on a whole new level and it's immensely impressive. And
of course in terms of what they can do to you know serious
headaches not only for the Saudis but for the American Israeli abstin complex
what they can do in the Red Sea and the Bab al for them is natural. It's it comes natural. They say yes if we need
to block it again we'll do it. This is what they are saying last year. I'm worried this year because I lost contact
with some of my friends in uh we were talking about via telegram and they haven't answered my latest messages. I
am worried maybe there is an internal internet problem in Yep. quite possible, right?
To give you an idea, Dimmitri, they lost all their planes. They were they were saying, "Look, we would like to invite you guys again to come here this year,
but we have no planes." They were born by the bloody Israelis.
When you refer to the spokesman, I assume you're referring to Muhammad Alb Bukayiti. Uh,
yes. I talk I spent I spent more than one hour talking to Albukiti in Asana.
He's extremely well prepared.
We had the opportunity to interview him uh about a year ago. He did. Okay. Great. Great.
At the end of it uh I don't know if he introduced you to his boys but they were this wonderful children he brought to the screen at the very end of the
interview. And uh what impressed me about uh him is as you said it was his calm, his equinimity, his grace.
Uh not at all the picture that we we in the west are given about anal officials.
But I'm curious to know uh Pepe, you know, we've seen these incredible images of masses of people in Sana coming out
regularly to support uh the defense of the Palestinian people and the Zionist entity. Was it your impression when you
were there that the public public support for this defense of the Palestinian cause and the axis of resistance remains robust?
Dimitri, when you see that uh it's an enormous uh I would say it's a mix of a
square and a parking lot. Enormous with the mountains in the back. When you see 1 million people in front of you,
it's absolutely mindboggling.
Uh look, I have been as a foreign correspondent for 40 years everywhere literally. So you think that you've seen it all. No.
When you see something like this, you're like, and of course, um I had the supreme honor to have one minute to
deliver a message to them. Uh the guy said the guy said do you want to go on stage?
Yes definitely but please don't worry I'm going to be very brief give me one minute.
So I was your message I would most curious to know what basically my message was very simple and
uh of course that the next day I was known because I was in every Yemen TV channel. We were we were a very small
group of foreigners after all. And basically I said look the whole planet identifies with you and they support your struggle.
Wow. So the crowd W which is absolutely correct.
Absolutely. and and and and later you have time to to speak to me to many of them and it's fascinating because they
are from different tribes from all over Yemen, not only Houthis from the north,
they are from other tribes as well,
including tribes from the the deserts in in Hadammouth or towards the east, you know, and even people who were in Aden
uh the capital, they said, "Look, Aden has been destroyed. because of Arab interference,
Emirati and Saudis and many people left Aden to go back to Sana. There are a lot of people who are former Adam residents
who are now in Sana and they uh and and they now and they started supporting the Houthis only recently. So this means
that the Houthis they have this factor of a glutination of Yemen which eventually they will probably I would
say mid to long term they could even run the whole of the country because Aden
essentially is a UAE uh dominated Saudi UAE but more UAE and UAE as we
know now is collapsing in real time in front of in front of everyone. uh the Dubai business model is already dead and
the next is Abu Dhabi and they're running out of dollars. They're begging the US to have access to dollars. So this is the beginning of the end and
obviously they made their choice Dimmitri uh for instance QAR their protector now is Turkey Saudi Arabia
they have a defense pact with Pakistan and the UAE chose Israel as their partner.
So eventually they're they're going to go down eventually. And what about uh what about Bahin Pepe?
Well, Bahin is fascinating because uh I love following Iraqi scholars. So uh the
last time I was in Iraq was two years ago in in Baghdad and I met some some very very smart people. Some of them are
part of this government and they are already discussing the post American Gulf and they say look Bahin
they have two options uh they're going to be absorbed by Saudi Arabia which is probably not going to happen because the
majority is Shiite or they're going to be absorbed by Iran. That that's quite quite possible. Uh and the UAE they said UAE eventually will go back to Oman.
And whoa, that'll be a moment of great rejoicing in the anti-imperialist cause.
So, let me let me move over closer to your neck of the woods with my next question, Pepe. And that is the reaction
of the Chinese government and I'm going to put up on the screen.
It is indeed. I'm really curious to get your if I could just show you in our audience. Uh there have been a number of
statements, but here's one that came out a couple hours ago.
Uh this is uh I picked this up from the Irish Times, but apparently it's uh based on a report from Reuters that he called Saudi Arabia's crown prince,
which is an interesting decision.
And uh they he expressed concern over renewed instability around the strategic waterway. Uh he is China the report says
is the main buyer of Iranian crude. Of course we know that uh and China advocates an immediate and comprehensive ceasefire and insists on resolving
conflicts in the Middle East through political and diplomatic channels. This is coming from the state news agency Shininoa citing President G. And finally
uh he's reported President G to have told the Saudi leader the straight of Hormuz should remain open to normal passage as this serves the common
interests of regional countries and the international community. So I this is extraordinarily
neutral uh ambiguous. It certainly doesn't sound like any kind of a warning to the United States. What do you make of the
statements coming out of the Chinese government today?
uh but they are the masters of understatement as we all know and they are never blunt
especially I'm talking basically about the ministry of foreign affairs but especially C
every sea world is calculated to oblivion
and he always needs to uh project this image of impartiality
of being neutral Of course, in the case of China in the in Persian Gulf, they have very good relations with Iran, but also with the Persian Gulf monarchies.
After all, especially Saudi Arabia, they buy most of their oil in the Persian Gulf from Saudi Arabia. By the way, most of it paid in E1,
but it's never advertised that it's paid in E1, otherwise the Americans will go completely nuts. It's very discreet. But
mo mostly the the the balance nowadays is more you want than petro dollars. And sooner or later they're going to pick up the phone to Riad. I said from now on
it's only petro dollars with you with Iran is already pro yuan for a long time which is one of the reasons of this
blockade which is a stupid blockade because uh China has so many sources
apart from uh everything that goes through the straight of vermoose they have uh Russia two pipelines oil and gas
they have Kazakhstan oil pipeline they Turk manistan gas pipeline. They have Myamar gas pipeline. Not to mention
inside they are 80 84 to 86% self-sufficient already.
It's something that you see in when you go to Sing.
When I was a sing last year, my first talk because I h I had not been to
western China for 10 years or so. When you come back after 10 years, it's like wow, it's totally electrified
22 minutesand you see forests of uh uh wind turbines, solar panels, solar farms with
that those poles where you know reflecting the sun you know hundreds of kilometers around. Sing Jang has so much
energy that they sell energy to the rest of China. So it's not that China is dependent on the straight of Hormuz.
This is uh let's say 13% of what they imported oil and gas it's not too much
and the Russians already said in fact Lavrov said that I think two days ago Max he said look you need more gas no
problem. Uh the the power of Siberia 2 is not ready. is going to be ready next year. But the power of Siberia 1 is
almost full capacity. But they can start using the spare capacity as well and China will get more gas from in in fact
the number one provider of gas to China now is already Russia.
So they are now worried. Not to mention they have reserves for months on end. So it's not complicated at all. But the
Chinese in public and this is for instance uh I spend a lot of time going through some Chinese channels that are
not directly linked to the the the pyramid of information uh Sinoa you know
China Daily all that uh my friends at Guancha in Shanghai they are semi-independent but you know you try to see some some of the some of their past uh academics,
they never enter directly into these um analysis. You know, of course, there's a there's a limit to what you may say
still even in non completely nonofficial press.
So, it's complicated, but I I I'm going there in three weeks. That would be my best shot to have uh from themselves.
How do they actually analyze the war in broader terms? Uh far away it's impossible to know. It's it's very
complicated because uh there is this element of u never interrupt your enemy when he's
committing serial mistakes which is the case. So they prefer to be quiet. They're just watching.
But now for instance this is a I would say this is a crucial example. You have
an attack on uh an Iranian vessel that left from a Chinese portal
port is in Zuhai in southern China. Uh going to Iran. So this is an attack on
China as well. So, how they're going to react to that specifically, you know, as much as they don't want a direct confrontation.
And we should never forget uh three weeks before Trump goes to Beijing, the
the meeting is still scheduled for May 14th.
Nobody knows if this meeting is going to happen.
My my sort of bigger uh maybe it's a sort of a primitive assessment of the situation for China is that if the Iran
the Iranian government were to fall and were to be replaced either Iran were to descend into chaos or the government were to be replaced by
some regime that is entirely subservient to Washington. Uh effectively the United States would have a strangle hold over
this incredibly important region, one which American military planners after World War II described as a stupendous
source of strategic power, the greatest imperial prize in human history uh for obvious reasons. It's not just the
resources, it's also the the geostrategic location, the trade routes and so forth. and the United States were
to obtain unchallenged control over this region would undoubtedly use that power to weaken China to the maximum possible
degree. Uh, and I imagine that the Chinese must be keenly aware of this and so I I would assume I could be wrong
that they think they have powerful reasons to assist Iran and to ensure that it doesn't fall. Do you think that
that's likely to be their their calculus?
Of course it is, Dimmitri. And uh it's this is very clear for the Moscow and
Beijing for the leadership. Iran must not fall whatever it takes. And if they thought
that this Iran will be on the brink of regime change, then they would intervene in a more direct way. For the moment,
27 minutesthey don't need to. First of all,
because the Iranians don't ask. And this is something that you learn when when you talk to for instance Iranian
delegations that go to Moscow all the time. So I was always talking to them when they were in Moscow and they were saying ah it's okay no problem. They
okay anything you want or anything uh we want we can talk to you but uh they also
said that uh they never asked anything from the Russians specifically
and when that comes the Russians said if that's the case we're ready to help immediately if you need if you really
need it. So there is this element of trust with China is more complicated because with China they have a very specific
deal they signed in 2021 the $400 billion 25 year energy
infrastructure deal. This is very very complex and obviously the Chinese know that they need Iran because Iran is
their focus for the new silk roads. The most important partner in central
Eurasia for uh uh China is Iran is the crossroads of all those uh there are six
or in fact there are seven uh corridors going from sing Jang across central Asia
towards uh Europe eventually some of them are blocked for the Trans Siberian for the moment is blocked because of
sanctions but the Chinese built a railway inside Iran to connect to the
railways across uh central Asia. So from Sing Jang it goes to Kazakhstan uh then uh Usbakistan, Turkmanistan and
then it crosses the border to Iran. The the Chinese built for this railway and guess what happened only a few weeks
ago? The Americans bombed a stretch of this railway, which means they bombed a new Silk Road project paid by the
Chinese. So they knew exactly what they were bombing, right? So So in terms of uh connectivity corridors for China,
Iran is the number one across. Well,
since it was since the ancient Silk Roads was always like that. So obviously they cannot even imagine the possibility
of pro-american government getting but they know that this is not going to happen. The Chinese
read the internal situation in in Thran very well and they are closely connected.
For instance, Arai talks to Wangi as much as Lavra talks to Wangi and at the highest level. So they know
what's going on and they're not worried that might be regime change especially they when they saw the response which
started half an hour after the capitation strike they could see that Iran was ready for it and they of course
they interfere with the way Iran is managing the whole thing they are very
worried of course about Ormus because from their point of view it's much obvious it's much much better to be
to have the trade of our mus completely open. And now even if until what two
days ago for Chinese ships it was absolutely open and many of them were not even paying the toll booth.
But then of course after the American blockade then they blockaded the uh the straight completely. Obviously the Chinese don't want that. When they say
we want the straight of our most open it also means open like it was until a few days ago.
because there was already a a government to government agreement Iran China that the Chinese tankers will be able to do the back and forth with no problem. The
31 minutesproblem was the problem now is the American interference with this illegal blockade.
And Pepe, do you think that China has enough leverage over to Iran uh if push came to shove to oblige the Iranians to
open the street of Hormuz? Do you think the Iranians are perfectly capable of saying, "Look, this is our ace in the hole, and while we understand your interest in seeing the straight open,
this is an existential war for us, and we deem it necessary to keep it closed."
What do you think the dynamic and and don't forget the Persians are very proud?
It's 2,500 years, you know, behind them.
They are very, very proud culture, sure of themselves.
They hate any form of foreign interference. And the Chinese are clever enough to not even try foreign interference. They don't admit that in
China. Why would the persons admit it in Iraq? Same thing. uh of course um
a at a level that we don't see at the highest level message have been sent to Thran
saying look we we got your back but of course we prefer that we can have our
energy traffic undisturbed. We understand that for the moment it's a little bit complicated but the Chinese
of of course are always they're always looking ahead always looking ahead and because the relationship at the highest
level is so strong they know that uh even if the new there there's going to
be a new jeridical status for the state of Hormuz everybody knows that it has already been approved by Iranian
parliament they start to discuss with Oman already. So on both territorial waters, there's going to be a toll boost inevitably.
That's fine with China. Absolutely fine w with them because they know that there
the the sing will be tankers from the so-called hostile nations or for
instance tankers from the UAE. UAE refuses to pay the toll boos, but they're going to have to otherwise
that's it otherwise they're dead. simp they simply won't be able to export anymore. Period. We all got to pay the piper sometime.
That's what I just Yeah, exactly. So, let's uh to conclude our discussion,
I'd like to shift things kind of taking you all over the world. Bey, I'd like to come back to the Eastern Mediterranean where I'm currently situated. And if you
just bear with me, I want to take a few minutes to kind of set the table for my question.
No problem. Go ahead. Yes. My question is going to relate to tensions between
Israel and Turkey and uh in particular how this how Greece and Cyprus play into this because they've clearly aligned
34 minutesthemselves with Israel both economically and militarily and I'm just going to show one example of this. Uh this is a
report uh from Al Jazza in February of this year. Uh and in that report uh the
Greek uh government officials from the Greek government told Al Jazza that Greece is interested in jointly developing weapons with Israel. The uh
chairman of the Greek parliament's defense affirious committee told Al Jazza his name is Angelus Cidigos we are an excellent customer of Israeli systems
the leap in our defense relationship will happen when there's co-production of defense systems and common planning.
Uh there's also uh strong evidence that Greece is helping uh Israel and the
United States to wage war on Iran. Uh I was recently at the uh Suda military
base, the US/NATO/Greek military base in the north of Cree. and uh from the Kanye airport which is a
joint military civilian project as we noted as I reported on reason to resist about a week ago there was a lot of uh
tanker uh uh military transport traffic going through that airport and recently within the last days uh some someone
compiled a graph from flight radar and you'll see here huge number of US military transport planes according to
flight radar uh 24 going from uh northern Europe, Britain down to West Asia. They're going through Greek
airspace. And if you pay careful attention, you'll see a lot of them are stopping in Cree, uh where presumably they're refueling or they're loading.
That's, you know, down in the eastern Mediterranean obviously. Uh so this is just one piece of evidence about the role that Greece is playing. Greece has
also, it's, this is a matter of public record, allowed the Israeli air force to use Greek airspace to practice bombing
runs on Iran. Uh, that was uh a couple of years ago. And then uh on top of that, we have statements like this
coming from is emerging. I want to be very clear.
Turkey and Qatar have gained influence in Syria, are seeking influence elsewhere and everywhere throughout the
region. And from here, I warn Turkey is the new Iran.
Erdogan is sophisticated, dangerous,
and he seeks to encircle Israel. And while some senior Israelis were on Qatar's payroll,
Qatar and Turkey are nourishing the Islamic Brotherhood monster that is
growing and eventually uh might become as dangerous as the one created by Iran.
Turkey and Qatar are gaining influence not only in Syria but also in Gaza through the front door
and everyone and trying to create a new choke rink. Uh Turkey is trying to flip Saudi Arabia against us and establish a
hostile Sunni access with nuclear Pakistan.
So um all of this has provoked a strong response from Turkish foreign minister
last week. uh Hakan Fidan criticized Greece and Cyprus over their cooperation with Israel, warning it could heighten
regional tensions and he said cooperation between Greece, the Greek criate administration and Israel does not bring more trust. It brings more
mistrust. It brings more problems and war and uh he added that Athens is pursuing an extremely dangerous policy.
quote, "There are very interesting aspects in Greece's attempt to pursue a kind of policy that no other country in Europe follows alone." So this is a bit
38 minutesof a delicate subject for me to address Pepe because I am in Greece and I'm while there's a popular uh opposition to
Israel and massive discontent with its crimes against uh the Palestinian people. Uh the fact is that there is a
significant percentage of the Greek population that believes that Turkey is a major threat and that our best protection when I say our I mean the
Greek people is to align ourselves with Israel. And there's a significant percentage of the Criate population ascribes to that view as well even
though I think most criates are very uh appalled by what Israel has done to the Palestinian people. And so from your perspective as someone sitting on the
outside I guess I have a couple of questions for you. First of all, how much is of this rhetoric that you hear going back and forth between Turkey and
Israel is theater? And how much of it do you think is serious? Do you think they actually do regard each other as uh a
major threat to their own security? Or are they more or less cooperating behind the scenes and just putting on a show for their own uh electorates?
Okay. Uh after I say something, I would like to ask you directly. How do you see
Greece profiting from this alliance with Israel? Is is it parallel to the Modi
Israeli alliance like Modi Modi expects to get uh military technology,
surveillance technology, etc. Is this what Greece is u aiming at? But okay,
from the position from from the point of view of a nomad outsider,
we all know that there's only one Zionist project which is to pit everybody against everybody else. Arabs,
Sunnis or Shiites, Persians, Turks,
Kurds fighting each other to kingdom come literally to the profit of ET Israel expanding their borders.
There's no other plan B for them. So obviously they need to create or recreate or invent enemies non-stop. So
they already thinking about the next enemy and apparently it's already designated. It's Turkey.
Okay. Considering that how uh um monolithic and monochromatic their
strategic thinking is, that's not uh anything that we should be uh the
problem is uh are they throwing Greece into this mix without even asking the people who actually run Greece?
If this is for Greek interests,
I think th this is the key question and that's my question to you. In fact, I don't see Greece profiting from th this
association. I don't see anything for Greece out of it. And especially because Turkey and Greece, it's something that can be negotiated.
there are rational actors on both sides which is not the case when when it comes to uh Israel and the axis of resistance
in West Asia. One is a completely irrational actor and the other ones are rational. In the case of in in the case of Greece and Turkey, they're both
rational actors. Uh in terms of Turkish public opinion, uh I I am sorry that I have not been to Greece lately. I am a pistocratic just to give you an idea.
But I grew up with Greek philosophy in my head. So obviously I was instantly attracted to to Greek culture since I
was a teenager already. But uh the vagaries of geopolitics take me to to
Istanbul. Many I even lived there for a few months during the the beginning of the DSMO. I don't see Turkish public
opinion uh seeing Greece as uh antagonistically.
You don't feel that when you when you are in Turkey and even talking to some Turkish officials uh okay outside of the
AP please uh for instance when you talk to chemists in east who
absolutely nothing against Turkey on the contrary because they value Greece on a cultural level on a high
cultural level. So this is a thing that maybe includes certain specific games or
the Greek ruling classes and this would be my question to you.
Is this a trick in the end?
So this is an excellent question uh Pepe. Uh, let me start by saying, and I I know this is always treacherous waters for a Greek to wait into.
Be careful. Be careful.
That's not my t that's not my inclination, but nonetheless do this with some trepidation because it is a sensitive subject. You know, obviously with the Ottoman Empire having, you know, occupied Greece for so long,
uh, that's that was that that's left a bitter taste in the mouths of many many Greeks and understandably so. But I don't believe and and I've had plenty of
interactions with Turks uh in the past uh few years and in fact one of the people who went on my trip to Iran was a
Turkish journalist who was a wonderful young man and we got along fabulously. Uh and so all my
interactions with ordinary uh Turks has been have been positive. I never felt that they were hostile towards me. I I
often that they were kind of worried that I might be hostile towards them because I was agree. But they never showed any, you know,
discourages to me because when they learned that I was Greek. I think that what happens is the Greek government pipes the threat from Turkey in order to justify absurd levels of military
spending. And a lot of that has to do with corruption. Uh they love that there's a lot of corruption in the military-industrial complex in Greece.
The oligarchy profits enormously from this. The oligarchy profits enormously from doing business with Israel, not
just in the military sector, but also a recent report came out which showed that uh Greek shippers have been providing
covertly a lot of oil, gas and coal uh and military equipment uh to Israel
during the genocide. Uh so and the Greek oligarchy has tremendous influence over the government and the government also
is highly subservient to Washington the Greek government and Washington wants us demands in fact that the Greek
government facilitate Israel's uh crimes. So that is also a factor and I really feel as a great that we are being
taken to the cleaners here. I think that what Israel is trying to do is trying to use us as proxies uh in uh potentially
some kind of military conflict in the future with Turkey. And you can be damn sure that if that happens that conflict is going to f be fought principally on
Criate and Greek soil, not on Israel's soil. Israel.
So I I'm curious about your thoughts of all of that. That's what I feel is happening here. And my final sort of uh
exhortation to my fellow Greeks is stop drinking the Kool-Aid. There's absolutely no reason why we can't get along with our Turkish brothers and
sisters. And the last thing we should be doing, I mean, if you can't bring yourself to side with Turkey in some kind of a conflict with Israel, fine.
But the last thing we should be doing is siding with Israel in any conflict. uh and absolutely you know so if you have anything to add
uh to that P no you you answer you answer the question uh Dimmitri because I think
you know hitting the nail on the head is how Israel always plays divide and rule and once again they are playing divide
and rule using both Turkey and Greece and public opinion in Greece and in
Turkey they have to be very very careful about that because they they will start playing Israel's game sooner or later.
They cannot do this thing uh in Iran or in Lebanon. In le in fact in Lebanon they do because in in Lebanon they they
provoke civil war inside Lebanon. This is what they're doing. They're basically supporting a government of traitors in Beirut against Hezbollah. So it's the
only thing that they know how to do apart from killing women and children. That's it.
Precisely. Precisely, brother. Thank you so much. It's been a a great pleasure speaking with you. Thank you, Demetri. Enormous pleasure.
I hope we can have you on again soon and uh you know tap your brain for any number of other pearls of wisdom.
After China is when I when I when I'm in China or leave China single I gonna have some juicy things to tell you.
Take care. Peace out. Okay. Take care. Cheers. Peace. Cheers. Let's go back.
Sync to video time

[admin]

The Iran War at the Crossroads: Diplomacy or Escalation? An Interview With Hassan Ahmadian
Drop Site News
Apr 21, 2026

The war against Iran launched by the U.S. and Israel on February 28 has not gone according to plan. What was initially portrayed as a quick regime change action that would destroy the Islamic Republic and spark a domestic uprising soon morphed into a war of attrition in which Iran stunned the U.S., Israel, and international observers. Six weeks after the opening strikes that assassinated much of Iran’s leadership, it is President Donald Trump who appears desperate to find an exit. The Iran war is now at a definitive crossroads and the coming days will prove decisive.

In a wide-ranging interview, Drop Site’s Jeremy Scahill spoke with Iranian analyst Dr. Hassan Ahmadian, Associate Professor of Middle East Studies at Tehran University. Since the war began, Ahmadian has become one of the most prominent Iranian commentators in the Islamic world because of his viral appearances on Al Jazeera Arabic.

Scahill and Ahmadian talk about what Iran would be willing to accept as part of a deal with the U.S., how it could ensure that the U.S. and Israel do not renege on an agreement and restart the war, and how Iran will approach the issue of its enriched uranium stockpiles. They also discuss the internal decision-making process in Iran, debates among the political, religious and military echelons, and the role of Parliament Speaker Mohammed Baghar-Ghalibaf, Tehran’s lead negotiator in the current talks with the U.S. Ahmadian also offers a comprehensive overview of Iranian strategy and its perspective on reestablishing deterrence and regional balance in the aftermath of the U.S.-Israeli wars.



Transcript

I'm Jeremy Scahill from Drop Site News. The war launched by Donald Trump and Israel against Iran on February 28th has
not gone the way that Donald Trump imagined it would. Iran had telegraphed long in advance that it was not going to
proceed the way it had in previous occasions when the United States and Israel had bombed it. Namely, it was not
going to choreograph its retaliatory strikes or engage in any kind of back channel discussions prior to launching
them. In fact, Iran said that it was going to delegate command authority further down the line and that it was
going to immediately begin counter strikes on a bank of targets that had already been predetermined. So, what
we've seen over the past weeks is that Iran has struck uh US installations, military facilities uh across the
Persian Gulf. It's pummeled Israel on an unprecedented level with ballistic missile and drone attacks. And this has
resulted in the United States having to evacuate military bases and other facilities across the region. Now, there
has been a lot of talk about a potential deal. Donald Trump has falsely claimed for many weeks that Iran was begging him
to make a deal. Senior Iranian officials told me, however, that roughly the third or fourth day of the war after it
launched on February 28th, Steve Witoff and other American officials began reaching out to Iran asking it to talk.
And we are now in a situation where the Iranians have agreed to a two-week ceasefire that ends uh on Wednesday. And
there's questions about whether there's going to be a resumption of the USIsraeli attacks or diplomacy is going
to prevail in some form. Iran was very skeptical of uh entering into this kind
of a temporary pause in part because it felt that the situation in the straight of Hormuz the unexpected damage that it
had caused to American military facilities the fact that Israel's supply of interceptors uh we know was dwindling
that Iran had leverage that it had not had even prior to the launch of this war
and we are very fortunate right now to talk to one of the sharpest analysts from Iran. I'm referring to Hassan
Ahmadian, Dr. Hassan Amadian. He is associate professor of Middle East studies at Tran University and is at
this point one of the best known Iranians particularly in the Arabic language media because of his uh
appearances on Alazer where he's often fighting against five, six or seven other panelists. Dr. Amadian, thank you
very much for joining us here on Dropsite. Thank you. Thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be with you. So I I want to
begin by asking you um about uh the the the terms that Iran would consider
reasonable or fair as part of any settlement. But the overarching factor
that Iran of course has to deal with is the fact that twice in the in one year when it was engaged in negotiations with
the United States uh the US and Israel then launched quote unquote surprise
attacks against Iran. So, there's this dynamic of what does Iran want out of a deal? But there's also the fact that
Donald Trump has repeatedly lied. He's very erratic. And how could Iran even believe the word of the United States at
this point? Well, I think trust is not there to begin with. I don't see Iranians
trusting uh the United States, specifically this administration any at
any time in the future. I think they will basically bank on what they have uh
uh in terms of power, military power, what they have of leverage over the straight of hormones. The Iranians moved
past the international community as a protector. The UN Security Council did
not stop two wars, illegal wars imposed on the country. And so the Iranians
learned it the hard way. It's about power. If you don't have power, you will
be subject to uh annihilation because they came with uh with you know goals
bringing down the system and some of them spoke about bringing down Iran. Some of them spoke about partitioning
Iran. So it's it's basically Iran that is being targeted. And so the Iranian
perception is that we cannot trust them and we cannot trust the international
community to protect us against or shield us against aggression by Israel and the United States. And oo we need to
bank on our power and what is the power? It is an asymmetric power. The Iranians
of course uh don't their power does not match that of the United States. Definitely not uh it combined. I mean
the combination of USIsraeli uh air force uh is basically way beyond what
Iran has. Their military power is way bigger. I mean if you look at the budget
military budget Iran's is less than 1% of that of the United States. So there's
no match there. There's no balance there. But what what makes the balance
uh uh you know what inserts the balance on the ground is the mere reality that
Iran has an asymmetric capability to push back against aggression and we saw
that unfold in the 39 days of attacks on the country. Uh, and so, uh, back to
what your question, I think Iranians do not trust the Trump administration at
all. But what they're banking on is the fact that they stood against an
aggression and forced them out of this aggression short of achieving any of
their goals that that were stated. And secondly, they're building on the
leverage they have. Uh that includes u control of the shipments through the
ster hormones and also of course uh other other uh basically influencing
variables such as the u nuclear program such as Iran's uh capabilities in the
region that is the axis of resistance. All of these combined uh the Iranians
see that they can balance asymmetrically uh the the power of the United States
and can push it back and so they don't trust it though they go for a negotiated
settlement because at the end of the day you have to stop the aggression and there are ways now how the Iranians view
these ways I think we can talk about that. Yeah, I mean it it's it's true that while Iran is being um militarily
assaulted by the United States and Israel that it has shown that it can uh
certainly win in an asymmetric sense because it can block the United States from achieving regime change uh from
invading and occupying Iran from imposing a different form of of government. And Iran has shown an
ability to also respond on a symmetric level because when the United States and Israel attack certain types of targets
in Iran, Iran has shown that it can respond in kind in the Persian Gulf and also in Israel. But if that's taken
away, if Iran is no longer in a state of war, which clearly it has has shown an ability and a capacity to operate very
successfully in, and there is some sort of a deal, um then Iran risks, it seems,
uh a scenario where if it then reimposes uh some new reality on the street of
Hormuz or if it launches strikes that it would be portrayed, you know, as restarting the war. So, I guess what I'm
what I'm asking is if Iran gives up uh in some form its highlyenriched uranium,
which it says right now it's not going to transfer it out of the uh of the country and it gets sanctions relief, it
gets some uh uh funds unfrozen. Um those things can be uh reversed or gone back
on by the United States, but Iran, it seems, would have to give up irreversible things such as the the
enriched uranium. So, I guess what I'm asking you is how what does a fair deal and a realistic deal look like given
Trump's obsessive uh discussion about highlyenriched uranium and wanting Iran
to have irreversible conditions that it accepts. Well, many points there. I think the Iranians have made it clear they're not
willing to let go of their highlyenriched uranium. They want they are willing though uh to dilute it back
to 20 and then below that uh 20% and below that. But giving it up, that's not
an option. We had the spokesperson of the foreign ministry saying that the
uranium is is like Iran's soil. We will not give it up to the United States or any other party. But there are ways to
remedy concerns. If those concerns are real uh on the part of the United States
and and other Western powers, the Iranians are offering them that they can
dilute it back. they can uh bring in transparency through the IAEA, you know,
all the things they did, but still they were subject to aggression. Uh but the
reality is that as you said, Iran can give up and then be subject to violation
and then maybe aggression again. That's a very possible scenario taking into
account the previous uh uh years. I mean from 2018 till now. uh what the Iranians
are thinking is quite different. I think the war, this war and the previous war,
the 12 days war changed the strategic calculus uh in Iran in a way that uh that we I
personally never saw in the sense that we are we are to bank on the
capabilities that we have and we have a guarantee. Now you're talking about well
opening the stray, closing the stray that that can can happen but of course can bring in pressure on Iran. But
things have changed to no return to my understanding. The strait is the key and
is the table of negotiations. Everything is being put on that table. You want to
get into negotiations, the Iranians say, to the United States, stop the the war
in Lebanon. You want to uh have, you know, free free flow of shipments
and uh goods through the strait, then you have to give Iran the remedies to
what you did to the infrastructure and the sanctions, unilateral sanctions you
imposed on Iran. So that's the key to all issues. It it transformed into the
key and I think it's easy for Iran to use it. Now of course there are uh uh
you know different aspects to it but the the clear picture of it is that we will
get sanctions relief. That's the fair deal. If there is any fair deal uh we
will get sanctions relief. will get reparation for the aggression on the country and in exchange Iran will bring
in the IAA to provide transparency, dilute back its highlyenriched uranium
and of course try to remedy relations in the region with GCC countries. Uh and of
course the United States can uh you know talk to Iran on different matters as well. That's the general sense of what a
fair deal is. But we know that there is no trust as I said and so what
guarantees for Iran again it's the straight you violate your commitments
there is something you have to pay here and that I think changes the mentality.
Iran didn't have much to offer back in uh 2018 when the United States violated
its commitments in the JCPOA and in extension the UN security council
2231 but at this point it has tangible leverage uh that is one is of course the
main one is straight of hormones but also the unity of the fronts. If you violate one front, the other fronts will
be open automatically. That they showed in in this war and I think they will stick to moving forward. So we're
talking Trump's language now. It's not about international law. He he he never
observed any law internationally. He basically when it comes to Iran, he
violated each and every one of them. and also of course towards the Palestinians, towards others in the region. But we're
talking about Iran. With regards to Iran, he violated each and every law. And now the Iranians are talking his
language. Give and take. That's a fair that's that's uh what brings up a fair
deal. You can't just take and take and not give. You violated your commitments.
Now you have to pay for it. You attack the country and now you have to pay for it. If you don't do that, there is
something that we can use against you and it's very effective and it's as you
target our people, we are targeting the pockets of your people in terms of oil
markets and energy markets uh uh and in terms of global economy. That's the
asymmetric balance based on reality and power projection that is not necessarily
similar to that of the United States, but it's as effective as that of the
United States. Well, you you raised a number of interesting questions, but it also recalls to mind that prior to the
US and Israel launching this war on February 28th when there were negotiations and discussions in Oman and
then in Geneva, there were uh wide reports and in fact um Iranian officials
confirmed this for me that Iran was willing to put on the table uh a resumption of deals that would see the
United States working in the oil and gas sector inside of Iran as part of a of a deal. There's also some discussion of
what a compromise might look like at the regarding the administration of the Strait of Hormuz given that Trump is so
transactional and that he is using uh the the presidency in the United States
on a in a very clear and blatant way to enrich his family and his cronies not just with insider trading but the mere
fact that his son-in-law Jared Kushner is just uh swimming in Gulf money has
all these initiatives with Israel is very close uh personal friend of Benjamin Netanyahu and the fact that
Trump, you know, really views himself as kind of businessman as uh as as president. What could that aspect of a
deal look like regarding oil and gas in Iran and straight of Hormuz? Is it your understanding that any of those things
are in play now as they seem to have been back in February? Of course, I think uh the Iranians uh main uh issue
here is uh sanctions relief and the main aspect of uh sanction relief is Iran's
oil and gas market. That's the main thing. The Iranians need investments in
those aspects in those assets and uh their oil fields and their oil and gas
infrastructure and the sanctions have prevented them from developing those uh
those infrastructure and I think uh the tradeoff is for transparency in terms of
uh in terms of the nuclear program and the and on aggression packact if that is
necessary. There there have been ideas floating around that the United States and Iran can sign a non-aggression pact
that includes the region that is US you know leashing Israel from attacking Iran
and its allies and Iran saying that we will not attack unless attacked which is what happened basically and so uh uh
that's that's how the Iranians are u you know try trying to convey the their way
of dealing dealing with with the Trump administration. We know that Israel has immense influence. We know some Arab
countries have influence. But the war showed that despite their efforts not to
see this war unfold, the GCC countries, we saw them out being outbalanced by a
single person that is BB Netanyahu. And so we know that the the leverage there
is way bigger than those that of the GCC countries. Now with the with the war
going to where it went uh and the shortcomings on the part of US and
Israel in terms of achieving their goals. I think that relationship can be
tested between Trump and BB Netanyahu. We don't know the essence of it. There are lots of rumors and lots of talks and
lots of news as you know about it about the influence BB Netanyahu has on Trump.
Uh but be it as it may I think this war showed that what Netanyahu has been
preaching and advocating is not based on reality is it's wishful thinking. Uh and
I think that has to has some some sort of influence on how Trump thinks, how
the United States thinks. Uh and so I think moving forward, it's not about,
you know, who has uh how much of influence in Washington. It's about the
possibilities. The Iranians showed that they can fight a lengthy fight. As we
speak, there are discussions in Tehran. Why did we stop the war? that that's
very much debated in Iran. Why did we stop the war on Israel? They attacked us. They had to pay a bigger price. They
attacked our infrastructure. We shouldn't leave them uh uh without really uh uh you know putting immense
pressure and denying them uh of anything that they can look at as sort of
achievement moving forward. And so that can I just ask can can I you're you're
raising something that I think is really crucial and and you're right and I've heard this also from Iranian officials. There are different camps of thought in
Iran including in the power structure um on this issue. you know, the Israelis and the United States clearly were uh
finding themselves imshed in a quagmire and Israel's interceptors were running
low and the infrastructure of the US military in the Persian Gulf had been damaged to an unprecedented degree. And
I think that there were many people in Iran and in the broader axis of resistance that felt that the Iranians
actually had Trump painting himself into a corner and that this pause of two
weeks essentially allowed them to restock to prepare for another round and
also stripped Iran of immediate tactical leverage. Yeah, that's that's a good point. But I
hear from my military friends or military experts friends uh that you
know you can't just rearm as a US and Israel because anti-defense missiles are
not produced on mass. They can't be uh there is an infrastructure that they
cannot produce beyond that the capacity of that infrastructure in the United
States and in Israel. And so they're running low. So they will be uh they will be uh uh uh you know running low
for some time to come. So they cannot just restart the war in 2 weeks. They cannot just restart it in 2 months. They
need a lengthy period. The 8 months that ensued after the 12 days war is quite
telling on them rearming and then attacking the country. And of course we know that whenever the war would stop
the Israelis and the Americans would rearm. So does Iran. Iran is also trying
to uh rebuild, rearm, of course uh they attacked much of Iran's infrastructure.
They need to also remedy those. So it's a it's a two-sided story uh for the
just to read ju just just to emphasize the point you're making. Majid Musavi, the IRGC's aerospace uh commander said
on Sunday, and this is a quote, "During the ceasefire, our speed in updating and replenishing missile and drone launch
pads is even faster than before the war. we know that the enemy is incapable of creating these conditions for themselves
and they're forced to bring ammunition from the other side of the world in a trickle. So he's he's essentially making
the point also that you said you've heard from other um military experts. But on the tactical matter though, which
you know I I take your point on the challenges of the US and Israel restocking in that capacity. Um, but on
a political and a negotiation level, there's also an argument that Iran
stripped itself of kind of unprecedented leverage by allowing this pause. Do you disagree with that?
Well, I think it has some merit and I think uh that that has been also part of
the discussions in Thran. But all in all, Iran wanted to push back in a way
that forces its foes to think twice and thrice before attacking Iran once more.
And I think they did that. The United States will think more than once before attacking Iran moving forward. The
region will be against any war. though in the previous war in this war they didn't really matter to us on its
priorities but I think they will have uh uh more more to play in terms of
politics in the states pushing back against the possibility of another war Israel itself my understanding and and
I'm a follower of Israeli politics and its power structure Israel showed and
showcased once more that it cannot shoulder such a confrontation with Iran
absent the US. They cannot really go for a lengthy period of time fighting Iran
the way it did and receiving Iran's missiles and drones without US backing.
It cannot just do that. And that's a shift in the power uh balance of power
in the region. You cannot do much without the United States. And with the
United States, you didn't achieve your goals. That's important ma message and I
think that's what the Iranians are banking on moving forward in terms of negotiations. Now you can argue that the
Iranians could have continued for some lengthier period. They did the the
second week the Americans I mean the end of the first week of the war the Americans were sending messages left and
right to try to come to terms with Iran to stop the war. They knew it was a
quagmire. There's nothing to achieve. And I think even before the war, many Americans were like, "There's nothing
for us in it. It's a you it's an Israeli war. We are doing Israel's bidding."
That was clear. And from the get-go after their, you know, uh uh imaginary
way of thinking of Iran killing its leadership and then uh the system would
collapse did not materialize. They realized it's a quagmire. They needed to get out of it. And the Iranians
continued for roughly 40 days. Uh and then they decided that's they they can
they can get out of it with their deterrence being strengthened with their
cards being strengthened and uh uh with negotiations to translate those cards
that were strengthened into economic achievements. I think let me let me
point to two factors that I think are important for the Iranians getting out of the war. Two aspects are crucial.
First is their security and second is an economic outcome. The security part of
it is guaranteed or at least strengthened as I said with them fighting a lengthy war against two big
foes or two nuclear powers and not giving anything up but also achieving
strategic points. uh and also of course they see in in in in in a deal maybe
part you know uh strengthening this part of their uh deterrence moving forward
and of course the rebuilding say Majid Musavi's comments are important because he's the head of the aerospace division
he's basically managing the two pillars of Iran's military power that is the missiles power and the drones power and
so when he's saying that we are rebuilding faster than any time uh before this. That's only natural for
Iran because it was subject to aggression from two powers and it needs to get ready for the for the next round.
Be whether or not it happens that's another story. The second aspect that I
think is very important is an economic outcome. the country was subject to
unilateral illegal sanctions and now there are differences on the
international sanctions on Iran. Of course, China and Russia and Iran are saying there are no international
sanctions. That's another thing. But what's important is the war and
attacking Iran's infrastructure. The Iranians are saying if we are to get out of the uh the war and go for a
settlement, that settlement needs to have economy front and center, you can't
have sanctions on Iran and expect Iran to uh live with it and let you use its
territorial waters in the straight of Hormones. Iran will observe the strait
no matter what deal they get to uh only to see that this is or make sure that
this is not being used against them moving forward. So the military blockade
that is uh blocking blocking any military movement through the strait
will continue indefinitely as my to my understanding. But economic shipments
the Iranians are you know are happy to live with provided that the sanctions
relief and reparations for the war are provided to Iran. Uh that's what the
Iranians agree on. Any step away from this tradeoff creates trouble in Iran
because it will be creating divisions and I don't see the Iranians going to
that direction at this point. They would stick to what they they they have a consensus on that is this is the fair
tradeoff. you you know do Donald Trump has been fond he's trying to manufacture a kind
of victory narrative and he keeps returning to several themes and one of them is that he's already changed the
Iranian regime and of course you know he's he's made numerous false claims the
biggest is that Iran has been begging him to make a deal. I think it's plain to anyone that paid attention uh to any
of this that Iran has been in control of when there are going to be talks and that no matter what Trump has
threatened, including literally saying that he's going to destroy an entire civilization, that hasn't moved the
needle at all. Um the massive bombing of Iran hasn't moved the needle at all. I
think anyone who has eyes to see is is clear on this. But there it is true that
the United States and Israel assassinated uh large sectors of the very top
leadership in Iran with the opening hours strike against the Supreme Leader
Ali Kamei um leaders of the IRGC um political leaders of Iran. That's
certainly true. Um, and I'm wondering though when Trump says, you know, there's a new regime, um, you know,
people in his administration also sort of try to compare it to Venezuela and say, and the Israelis are pushing this
talking point that some of the leaders in Iran right now are the kind of Deli Rodriguez's uh, you know, of of the Iran
war. But I'm I I I I I think it would be really interesting to hear your detailed
breakdown of who you think is making decisions in Iran right now. How the
different echelons from the political sector, the religious sector, the
military sector in Iran are weaving. There of course is a supreme leader Moshtabi. He's released a number of
statements though he hasn't publicly given a speech. Iranian officials are saying that's for um security reasons at
this point. But Hassan, I really would love to hear your understanding. I recognize you're not an official uh from
the Iranian government. You're an independent analyst, but can you break down your understanding of who's in
control and how decisions are being made? Yeah, of course. But first, Trump has
been piling a lot of uh you know points suggesting that he he made an
achievement. I can I mean I I mean I've been following US Iran relations for for
decades now and I can see that he didn't achieve anything. He actually was forced
out of the war and he was trying to get an achievement. The Iranians denied him
any achievement. his main achievement is the assassinations that he did in the
and Israel did basically in the g beginning of the war and even that uh
pales in comparison with what Iran achieved on a strategic level and
actually the smooth way the transition of power happened in Iran is quite
telling as to what extent this was an achievement for him and for Israel. Uh
now when it comes to decision making in Iran and I I think that's you know he
has been on a the Israelis and the Americans the administration in the US
have been on a cognitive warfare trying to talk differences or touch differences
in Iran if they exist. And I think that has been part of it. There's
psychological warfare in parallel going on against Iran, but also the cognitive
warfare that targets the internal politics of Iran is part of this
Rodriguez uh you know uh the the Venezuela model etc. Uh I think it's
very simplistic to to think that way for basic reasons. the Iranian system and
I'm speaking as someone who taught political system, comparative political systems for years now. The Iranian
political system is basically very institutionalized.
Namely, name name another system whose top echelon are assassinated and is
capable on continuing or uh is capable of continuing and also waging a
retaliatory war effort against two big foes. I don't see any historical uh you
know uh parallel to this that speaks volumes to the institutional
institutionalized level of the system. Uh now when you look at the system the system has uh
many uh institutions uh from from the bottom to the top. Um the the everything
happened after the assassination of the previous supreme leader went according to the book according to the Iranian uh
constitution and the procedures put in place in the system according to its
institutional capacity. And so you had the assembly of experts choosing a new
leader and you had the leader appointing heads of or commanders of this of the
armed forces. the assembly, the the the Iranian parliament working, the Iranian
government, the judiciary, all of them. We had an intrim leadership council that
worked in until the next supreme leader was elected. And the simplistic view of
this institutionalized system is basically wishful thinking because it's not only institutionalized.
For every institution in Iran, there's a parallel institution. So if you wipe out
institutions, the system will not collapse. It's basically designed to
withstand collapse or withstand these kinds of shocks. And so so you have a
parliament, you have a guardian council. That's the parallel thing. You have a judiciary, you have the revolutionary
judiciary. That's a parallel thing. You have the ministry of intelligence. You have the intelligence of the IRGC. You
have the army. You have the IRGC. So whatever you target, it's not only about
figures. It's about institutions. Wipe out entire institutions and you will not get regime collapse or system collapse.
That's I think uh is not understood at all in US political debates. And so when
looking at this institutionalized system, you could see that it's working according to plan. It's working
according to the procedures and the constitution. The supreme leader was
elected. In between there was an intim supreme the leadership council of three
people and then the new supreme liber leader was was elected. Who's running the show? I think he's pivotal. He is
not only the leader, he's the balancer. That's the uh uh the tradition in Iran's
political system from Ayatali to and now the uh the new supreme leader they are
the balancers within the system. You have people from left and right in the system uh you know around them. They
would try to balance the system. They would try to balance the politics in the
country and they have the final say. And how that how does that work in in
practice? It goes through the Supreme National Security Council. The body uh
basically that has two main uh tasks to do. first to create consensus or build
consensus on strategic issues and second to translate uh or or bring in the
buying of all uh uh power power circles within the system. Uh it has 13 members
from the main stakeholders in the system to representing the supreme leader. the
president is the head of that council but also it has a secretary uh who was
assassinated Dr. Ali and then was replaced by the supreme leader. And so
creating this consensus and then deciding on strategic issues is the main
thing this body does and it does it uh on the behest of the supreme leader and
to basically create a space for all parts of the system to have a say on the
decision. And it's a tradition also that the supreme leader wouldn't oppose it.
uh oppose its decisions because it's the consens consensualbased
mechanism of decision making and that creates a bit of a delay in strategic
decision making in Iran but it has worked to Iran's benefit because you know it's very much uh uh the the the
the bulk of or the the the bulk of Iran's decision makers logic way of or
rational way of rational izing strategic decisions uh are gathered in this body
and so it's a rationalization of the decisions that is ongoing on a
consensual base that the system observes and uh accepts. that thing.
You know, it's it's it's interesting the um you know, the sort of parallel information war Iran has has really um
distinguished itself not just in the kind of free sector with the you know the Lego videos and explosive media, but
also uh there were moments that went viral in foreign minister Abasar's appearances on American television. Um
his uh recognition in the world has really risen dramatically. He's he's become very familiar to also western
audiences. There's also a whole meme industry about him uh online. Muhammad
Vagar Galibah, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, has regularly engaged in social media battles against
Trump. He's also been flexing his sort of knowledge of financial markets in uh
talking about the kind of very clear insider trading that is is going on. But there is this kind of uh momentum to a
broader narrative that the person that the United States is dealing with right now is in fact the speaker of the
Iranian parliament uh Galibah and and you know the American political system
operates like that and they there sort of everything you just said for the past minutes your analysis and your academic
explanation of how Iran is run um becomes irrelevant in the broader discourse and it's just cult of
personality. It's we're dealing with this new guy, Galibbah, and let's see if he's going to be allowed to make a deal.
If the IRGC is going to allow him and Iraqi to actually make a deal, we'll see. And if not, we have to bomb them
again. But can you for for people that are being told this and that and this is the the narrative that it really is
dominant in Western media, including on um Al Jazzer and elsewhere that it's a Galibah that's kind of in the driver's
seat. What is the significance of him leading the Iranian delegation and what kind of authority does he actually have
right now? Well, he brings in the authority that the Supreme National Security Council with the blessings of
the Supreme Leader are giving him absent those two is a regular politician. He's
of course a very uh strong personality is one of the people that was uh that
were in the in the system from the get-go. He fought the Iran Iraq war and he was in every up and down in the past
uh five decades of the Iranian history and so he has knowledge, he has
experience, he has a lot of uh uh you know connections and he's very much
trusted by the Supreme National Security Council and by the Supreme Leader and so
absent that consensus within the the Supreme National Security Council I
think he wouldn't have in meeting the Americans. So we have to weigh this into
the Iranian political political system and how it operates. I know that uh they
are focusing on the personality because I think it's a as a as you said it's a cold politics thing in the US that look
at who replaces who and then we can deal with it. They cannot basically reckon
with the reality that Iran has an institutionalized system. They need to
see figures. But without the consensus that I explained, Mr. Kalibav wouldn't
have met the Americans. Without that consensus, he wouldn't have talked to JD
Vans. And so him going there is a decision by the political system to meet
on a higher level with someone the Iranians saw as opposed to the war that
was imposed on the country, that is JD Vans. And so they didn't want to uh go
the same way they did before with with Witito and Kushner who didn't basically
they were doing Israel bidding in the in the discussions. Maybe JD Vance would do
the same. We don't know. But at least the Iranians saw him as someone who was opposing the war and wanted to
reciprocate in uh in Mr. Kalib being present there. But it's not about the
person. It's about the system deciding to meet the United States on a higher
level. And I think even the discussions and the topics that were discussed there, they were prior they they they I
imagine they have had been discussed before within the Supreme National
Security Council. That's how it goes in Iran. So to give a lot of credit and
sway to a single person basically misses the point of how the Iranian system
operates. Now of course Alibaf as a person as I said is very much a a strong
personality with within Iran Iran's politic politics and of course personalities matter. Personalities have
a have a weight basically in the system itself. He has a weight within the
supreme national security council which is which he is a member of as a speaker of the parliament and so he's one of the
13 people within the system within that within that body and so he's part of the
core of the strategic decision making within the system but as I said without
the consensus without the blessing of the supreme leader because has he has the power to veto the the decisions of
the supreme national security council he didn't. So he went on with the decision taken by that body. Uh and so as much as
you give of a weight to Mr. Alib on a personal level, I think that pales in
comparison with the uh authority that is given to him by a body that is tasked
with strategic decision making. And that's why the Rodriguez Venezuela model
is really ridiculous if you look at it through the prism of how Iran's political system operates. It's a very
much inside the bubble discussion in Washington than related to reality on
the ground in Iran. Yeah. Do do you get the sense at all? You know, there there's also there's a
lot of reports uh that are uh you know, we should say based on quote unquote US
intelligence or Israeli intelligence that there are these divisions between the IRGC and the political echelons in
in Iran. Is this is this pure propaganda or or is there I imagine and I'm an
outsider. I have nothing I have no inside knowledge of Iran, but I would imagine that there certainly are very
intense debates about strategy and that you have very powerful personalities who
represent large powerful uh constituencies within the the the
institutions of the state. But do you get a sense Hassan that there actually um is a kind of friction or any uh
disunityity or conflict between the IRGC and what it controls in Iran and the the
political uh echelons that Alib and others are sort of representing. Yeah, I think I think uh there is some
merit to this in the sense that there are debates in Iran. I mean as I said
within the supreme national security council you have different people talking and they represent different uh
uh power circles within the system but the system is designed in such a way to
observe observe those kinds of divisions or differences of opinions. Now they
have different strong opinions and so uh that body is to remedy those and bring
them closer to one another. Now of course I mean to say that there there
are no differences basically defies the logic of human actorship in uh in a in
such a way uh that is happening within the political system in Iran and elsewhere. But to say that these are
divisions that one party is basically blocking and going its way and the other
is trying to reach an agreement with the United States. That's pure propaganda.
That's my understanding. That's cognitive warfare aimed at the unity that has been kept during the heaviest
bombardment of the country the past uh century. And so uh that is that is
propaganda to my understanding aimed at creating division rather than uh seeing division. And I I don't see it really
materializing in any shape or form in in tangible results that the United States
and Israel are after. But uh what's important here is that you you you have
those uh differences, you have a way to remedy them and then you have also
showed that you are working in accordance with the procedures you have
in place. There has been a very clear announcement by the Supreme National
Security Council right at the announcement of the ceasefire with the United States. Three pages. It doesn't
do that usually, but it was detailed. I haven't seen any Iranian official going
a single word out of this announcement on an official mission, be it with the
United States or with the region or with the world. Everything happened according
to this three-page document. And so to talk about divisions, I think, you know,
defies this reality on the ground that we have seen. And I think it's continuing to happen.
We only have a few minutes left, but I I I want to ask you about the uh narrative
that has become the dominant narrative among the GCC countries. the these are the the Gulf countries that uh have been
housing the US military facilities that Iran has been striking in these retaliatory strikes and some of the the
most intense debates that you've had Hassan on um Al Jazzer particularly on the Arabic language channel although it
also happens on Alazer English. I want people to also understand that Dr. Hassan Amadian is debating people in
three different languages at at at different times and primarily during this war it's been in English and in
Arabic and people can go online and watch a lot of these have been translated and they've gone viral but
what's at the heart of it is that there is a narrative that is pervasive uh
among the GCC countries and their leadership that Iran is the aggressor in
this conflict. When the GCC countries sponsored a UN Security Council resolution, it didn't mention the terms
United States or Israel. If you were to land from a different planet and just
listen to the leaders of the GCC countries describe what's happening in the world right now, you would believe
that Iran woke up one day and decided to just start bombing infrastructure and
damaging civilian life of all of its neighbors. I I I would challenge anyone
to find me a contrary narrative that is more realistic or factual than the one that I just stated. But Dr. Amadian,
you've been then dealing with this on these panels. So I as we end I want to hear your sense of kind of what it's
like when you're sitting there and you're basically uh being portrayed as uh representing the kind of villains in
this and you're on with all of these Gulf Arab analysts and sometimes American journalists you recently had a
debate with. But also more importantly, that narrative that all of these GCC
countries are acting like this happens in a vacuum and none of them are saying
almost anything about the fact that the US and Israel launched this war against Iran in the same way that they did
nothing about the burning alive of children in Gaza except offer thoughts and prayers. So both those issues, your
appearances and the broader narrative as we end. Yeah, I think uh you know it has been really surreal to listen to those
discussions in in absence of uh acknowledgment of the aggression that
happened unfolded uh both from the United States and from Israel. Now the
United States part of it is very important because it banks and it banked
on uh the GC the the the sentcom enterprise which is present in GCC
countries. uh now when when it comes to GCC positions they they are they have
differences of course is out of the uh other uh you know it has been kept out
of the war because it didn't allow the usage of its land against Iran in between the war tried to stop attacks
from its lands against Iran and the Iranians were you know calming things
down with it right right after the Raslean attack in retaliation
uh to the attack on Iran's infrastructure. Uh Kuwait was a surprise
to many Iranians because they didn't expect it to do what it did, giving land and bases to the United States to attack
its neighbors. Now, UAE and Bahrain normalizing with Israel, they have had
not only American, you know, bases, but also Israeli strong intelligence
presence. And so they were used in the war. I mean, you know, it's it's really
surreal to listen to analysts saying denying only. Whereas if you if you take
the same people out and talk to them, they would say, well, there is there is logic in what you say, but you know, our
our official position is uh deniable. We have to deny it. And and so it's it's
basically something that has been uh you know being talked of on on TV on on
media but everyone knows what transpired in this region. The US used these lands,
used their spaces and used their uh their their sea.
The the New York Times said it clearly that well office spaces and and uh hotels were used after Ivan attacked
their uh their bases. They moved to office spaces and hotels and conducted the war from there. And so there's no
point in denying but at this point they are denying they have been denying. And I think they are coming to terms with
reality that they cannot just deny everything. They have to talk to Iran
and come to terms with uh how to remedy this. Uh because I mean moving forward
if there's another war the same thing will happen if not worse. And so they
need to find a way out of it. But when it comes to debates, as you said, denial is the main uh thing here. And it's easy
to deny without providing any any uh argument. Uh and basically denying means
the end of argument. And you can't discuss anything with the person who's denying the reality on the ground
because arguments are based on realities. uh but generally I think
there is a strategic uh shift in the GCC that I see you know seeds of that is
these bases did not protect us actually the defenses that we had and purchased
and paid heavy for have been used to defend those bases and those bases in
turn they are not for the security of the region they are for the security of of a single actor that is Israel that
realiz ization I think is very strong now both on public level and on official
level because before this war there were talks of this but you didn't have a you
know a a clear evidence or experience to back your argument now you have it and
these discussions uh I had discussions with many of my Arab friends I think
they are reflecting on these ideas but why why do we have these bases uh why
why Are we putting ourselves in line of danger where the United States gets into a war without asking us and despite our
advice or against our advice and then continues the war and only talks about
US assets and bases and Israel did not care if we were attacked and then get
out of the war go for a ceasefire with Iran without consulting us. What kind of
a relationship is this? what kind of security providing uh that the United
States is doing for these countries. uh they are basically uh you know targeting
their security not providing them with security and I think that realization is the basis of many changes that I see
forthcoming uh in the future but but of course you know many many mistakes were
made in the past decades few decades between Iran and GCC countries and other
countries including Iraq I'm just hopeful that they will not repeat those
uh and and basically you know move to a different direction where they don't need foreign presence. They can provide
the security. Iran would not have to attack a base in Kuwait or in Qatar to
to stop aggression on itself. It would just, you know, focus on its main foe
who is attacking us. Uh that's that's I think a hope that I think is closer to
reality if you compare it to the before the war time.
Hassan, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. Pleasure. Doc Dr. Hassan Amadian is associate
professor of Middle Eastern studies at Trhan University.

[admin]

Pakistan Visit Turns into Scandal Storm: Vance Meets Dubai Fraud Lord Zahoor, Imran Khan's Nemesis?
Hindustan Times
Apr 21, 2026

Umar Farooq Zahoor is a Dubai-based businessman of Pakistani origin whose appearance during JD Vance’s April 11 arrival in Pakistan drew attention because he has long been linked to major fraud allegations in Norway and Switzerland, while also being politically prominent in Pakistan for his role in the Toshakhana case. Reports say he was briefly seen at the airport as U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff introduced people in the receiving line.



Transcript

The big question in Islamabad is the identity of the man seen alongside JD Vance with scrutiny centering on Dubai based businessman Umar Faruk Zahor.
Vance's April 11th arrival in Pakistan has sparked fresh buzz because the airport encounter is now being revisited ahead of the second round of Iran
related talks. Did Pakistan's army chief simune introduce Vance to a fraudster? Here's all you need to know.
US Vice President JD Vance's Pakistan visit on April 11th is still making headlines because a brief airport interaction from that trip continues to
attract fresh scrutiny. JD Vance was introduced to Umar Faruk Zahor upon arriving in Pakistan for the Iran peace talks according to reports and footage
now circulating online. US envoy Steve Witkoff was spotted leading Vance and appearing to introduce him to Zahor at the airport in Islamabad. Zahor's
background is the main reason why that otherwise brief airport interaction is drawing such intense scrutiny. Zahor is a Dubai based businessman who is wanted
in Norway in connection with one of the country's biggest bank fraud and money laundering cases according to multiple reports. Zahor is also a recipient of
the Hilleim Shaz, Pakistan's second highest civilian honor. Notably, he has also faced scrutiny in Switzerland over
alleged dubious financial dealings tied to a fake bank case. Zahor was a whistleblower in the Toshakana case. The scandal that helped send former Prime
Minister Imran Khan to jail. Former Prime Minister Imran Khan is widely regarded as army chief Simunir's biggest political rival in Pakistan. Who is Umar
Faruk Zahor? The fugitive businessman seen with JD Vance. He was reportedly born in Oslo to parents from Scalcot.
Zahor currently operates out of Dubai.
He publicly describes himself as a businessman, investor, and entrepreneur.
Norwegian authorities consider him a fugitive. His first recorded conviction dates back to 2003 [music] when he was
convicted in Norway in an embezzlement related case. Reports say Zahor later evaded sentencing and left Norway. The
earlier sentence eventually lapsed after 10 years. Since 2010, Zahor has been tied to a major fraud and moneyaundering case linked to Nordia Bank in Norway.
Authorities alleged that more than 60 million Norwegian crona were siphoned off in that case. He has also been accused of setting up a fake bank in
Switzerland in 2004 as part of an alleged financial fraud scheme. That Swiss case involved allegations that investors in Zurich were defrauded of
around $20 million. Zahor's name also surfaced in the controversial $510 million a power deal in Ghana where reports said he played a key role.
Despite the controversy around his name,
Zahor is still celebrated in Pakistan for bringing in large-scale investment and cultivating ties with the country's power structure.
Trump may not be ready to extend the twoe truce with Iran as the deadline approaches with a ceasefire now entering its final hours and fresh doubts [music]
growing over whether he wants to prolong the pause in fighting. The Wall Street Journal made that revelation on April 20th, citing sources who said Trump was
unlikely to keep the ceasefire in place if no agreement is reached [music] before the current deadline runs out.
The twoe ceasefire in Iran is set to expire on April 22nd amid rising uncertainty over the talks, leaving negotiators under pressure as the
diplomatic window appears to be narrowing fast.
Notably, Iran has not publicly confirmed attendance in the second round of peace talks, and official Iranian messaging has continued to cast out doubt over
whether Thran is fully on board. But Iran has signaled to mediators that it intends to send a delegation, according [music] to reports, suggesting Thran may
still be keeping the door open for diplomacy despite its public hesitation.
[music]
Trump is now being blamed for torpedoing the Iran talks with what officials described as non-stop public commentary at a highly delicate stage in the negotiations. [music]
Several of Trump's own advisers told CNN that the talks were on the verge of a breakthrough last week before his repeated public interventions began to
complicate the process. However, Trump then began commenting publicly on the talks through social media posts and media interviews, [music] injecting
fresh uncertainty into an already fragile diplomatic track. Trump even went ahead and claimed that Iran was ready to give up its [music] enriched
uranium stockpile as part of a possible agreement. That move prompted Iranian officials to quickly issue denials of Trump's claims, pushing back against his version of the negotiations.
The talks were at a sensitive stage when Trump began weighing in and CNN reported [music] that his public remarks did not help matters. US officials also
suggested Trump caused further harm by continuing to take calls from reporters and speaking publicly as negotiations remained unresolved. Trump also recently
created confusion over JD Vance's anticipated visit to Pakistan, [music]
adding to the broader uncertainty around the talks. On April 19th, Trump claimed that JD Vance [music] would not be attending the second round of talks with
Iran. Soon after, the White House clarified that Vance would in fact be leading the US delegation in Pakistan.
[music]
On April 20th, Trump then claimed in an interview that Vance had already departed for Islamabad.
However, reports suggested that Vance was still in Washington at the time and was only expected to leave on April 21st. Trump subsequently claimed that a
deal with Iran would be reached on April 20th itself, despite the fact that the talks were not scheduled until the [music] following day. In reality, the
talks were tied to April 21st and remained clouded by uncertainty over whether Iran would attend at all. Trump later told Bloomberg [music] that the
truce would end on April 22nd, further adding to the confusion over the diplomatic timeline.
for the good of our nation. Let's work together and let's truly make America great again. [cheering]
The fastest news breaks requested PM [music] saying that we will have to speak to Putin and to Zalinski. The biggest news makers.
The relationship with India is probably the most important bilateral relationship the US will have for the rest of this century.
The capital [music] delivered quite an election result today.
Expert analysis. The milliondoll question today is how to stop this dance of death.
Ground reports.
I'm standing at the crossroad of the Kuma. Behind me are more than 100 entry cards. Long form interviews.
Exclusionary politics is reflected in [music] Manipur case as well. You don't border because this is a small state.
Deep dive into burning issues.
It's often said DRC could be the richest country in the whole world. It's because of what sits underneath. [music]
Why exactly did the US topple the shakers in our government?
HD videos. We don't just break news, we break it down.

[admin]

Trump extends ceasefire indefinitely as Iran refuses to join peace talks | Janta Ka Reporter
Janta Ka Reporter
Apr 21, 2026

US President Donald Trump has announced an extension of the two-week ceasefire against Iran for an indefinite period. This was after Iran refused to send its delegation to Pakistan for the second round of peace talks. This also came as a huge setback for Trump who, in a TV interview on Tuesday, boasted about his country's ability to force Iran to accept the peace deal. Rifat Jawaid explains how the IRGC has now taken control of Iran's foreign policy.



Transcript

So, US President Donald Trump has had to face more humiliation as his fake claims on Iran were exposed today. Iran didn't
send its delegation to Pakistan for talks despite the deranged occupant of the White House claiming that the
Iranians would fall in line. Trump has now extended the ceasefire even though Iran refused to send its delegation to
Pakistan. There are more signs of the Iranian armed forces taking control of matters related to foreign affairs. In
the meantime, Trump is facing more serious questions at home on his decision to illegally attack Iran and
how he has allowed his family members to make billions from a tragedy caused by him. This would be the broad focus of my
video tonight. Also in this video, a reality check on the status of women in Iran and the Islamic Republic's ability
to rise against the imperialist forces of the US and the settler colony. So please stay tuned. So Trump has
chickenened out once again and why are we not surprised? He has just announced the extension of the ceasefire despite
Iran showing the middle finger to this Israeli slave and not sending its delegation to Pakistan for talks. He
wrote on truth social and I quote based on the fact that the government of Iran is seriously fractured not unexpectedly
so and upon the request of field marshall aim and prime minister Shabbash Sharif of Pakistan we have been asked to
hold our attack on the country of Iran until such time as the leaders and representatives can come up with a
unified proposal. I have therefore directed our military to continue the blockade and in all other respects
remain ready and able and will therefore extend the ceasefire until such time as their proposal is submitted
and discussions are concluded one way or the other. President Donald J. Trump end
quote. So effectively this clown has now extended the ceasefire indefinitely.
This despite the fact that he kept his deputy JD Vance and two Jewish property developers namely Ste Bitkov and Jared Kushner on standby at the White House.
They were there at the White House all through the day hoping that you know you know Iran would send his delegation.
They desperately hoped against hope that Iran changed its mind and accepted his request for talks. I'm talking about
Trump's request. To understand the magnitude of this humiliation, you need to watch his interview on CNBC TV only a
few hours ago. In that interview, he has shamelessly and falsely claimed that the Iranians had no choice but to agree to
his peace deal, his peace deal, since they were defeated by the US and Israeli terrorists. Join us now on the Squawk News Line, uh,
President Donald J. Trump. President Trump, welcome. Thanks for joining us this morning. Well, thank you very much, Joe.
You You are very welcome. Can you give us uh I think it's on everyone's mind the latest on where the Iran negotiations stand. We now know uh Tran
has publicly uh confirmed that it will send representatives to the meeting uh with uh Vice President Vance. What do
you expect? What What are you hearing at this point, sir?
Well, as I said two days ago when they said they won't send them, I said they'll be sending them. They have no choice but to send them. Uh what I think is that we're going to end up with a
great deal. I think it's got I think they have no choice. We've taken out their navy. We've taken out their air force. We've taken out their leaders,
frankly, which does complicate things in one way, but these leaders are much more rational. It's a it is regime change, no matter what you want to call it, which
is not something I said I was going to do, but I've done it indirectly maybe,
but I've done it. And uh I think we're in a very strong negotiating position to do what other presidents should have done during a 47-year period.
I don't know where this CNBC presenter got his information to claim that Iran had agreed to send its delegation to
Pakistan because the Iranians they have all along refused to take part in the second round of talks. This is the state
of the US media right now. Despite having an army of reporters and huge news gathering resources, they still
can't report one news item objectively and accurately. They could have just jenta reporter if they were feeling so
lazy. Also, there was no push back when this Israeli lap dog said that the US was in the strongest position to hold
diplomatic talks with Iran. A country claiming superiority doesn't show such a desperation for peace talks. Watch this
fascinating encounter between MS now presenter Katy Tour and Republican Congressman Mike Lawler. Everyone except
the delusional man from the White House and his bootlicker Zionist friends know who is showing desperation here.
The discussion I was just having showed that the Iranians are picking the US negotiators demanding Vice President Vance. And you may say they're backed
into a corner, but that corner includes leverage over the street of Hormuz,
which fuels the global economy and has put everybody under strain. And they don't seem all that unwilling to use it
and to continue to use it for quite some time. So, they may be backed into a corner, but that corner is well stocked.
And it seems, it appears the president is the one who is more desperate in this moment. Do you not agree?
Uh, well, let's look back. Uh, Barack Obama engaged in a sevenmon conflict in Libya that resulted in
We don't need to go back to Barack Obama with President Trump. No, we don't.
6 minutesExcuse me, Katie. Yes, we do. I want to live in the moment and I don't want to do a 10-minute detour for President Obama. It's not a detour. It's not a detour.
It's a relevant fact. Okay. We were in a sevenmon war in Libya that resulted in a civil war. Chuck Schumer and Nancy
Pelosi fully endorsed it, fully embraced it, said everything was great and the president was making his authority more.
Excuse me. We have to justify what happened then in order to ensure now. I'm talking about this.
I know I know you just want to spew out I know you just want to spew out the talking points for the left here, but the fact is this. This was a just war
that the president engaged in to stop this regime from possessing a nuclear weapon and ultimately okay you can say
that over the past 8 weeks uh in your opinion seemingly uh nothing has been done but the fact is their leadership is
gone. The Ayatollah is dead. The clerics are dead. The leadership of the IRGC is dead. The remnants are what we are
dealing with right now. And yes, if you think uh their using the Straits of Hormuz as leverage is a problem, what do
you think it would have been if they actually had a nuclear weapon? What do you think they would have done using a nuclear weapon to extort uh the rest of
the world? The president made a very difficult decision, but it was a necessary one. More and more Americans
are now openly questioning the role played by Trump's two Jewish property developers as international diplomats.
Worse, Trump's Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is also facing criticism for abusing his father-in-law's position to
extort billions of dollars from the Middle East. This is Senator John Osaf on MS Now. He rightly terms this reality
grotesque. trying to explain to your constituents at this in this speech this weekend and in general about the relationship between corruption and and their own lives, their own prospects.
I think people across the political spectrum are feeling outrage that while families in Georgia are made to
pay more and more for everything, the first family is
pocketing vast sums of money from all over the world. You were talking earlier about Jared Kushner. The guy leading our
diplomacy in the Middle East is bringing in billions from Middle Eastern princes and shakes and going around the region
asking for billions more while he conducts nuclear diplomacy on behalf of the country. It's cartoonish. It's grotesque.
As for Iran, the country's military is now questioning the rational behind agreeing to the twoe ceasefire. This
perhaps explains why the IRGC has taken control of the matter. Listen to Iranian academic Hassan Ahmedan on drop site
news. As we speak, there are discussions in Tehran. Why did we stop the war? That that's very much debated in Thran. Why
did we stop the war on Israel? They attacked us. They had to pay a bigger price. They attacked our infrastructure.
we shouldn't leave them uh uh without really uh uh you know putting immense
pressure and denying them uh of anything that they can look at as sort of
achievement moving forward and so that can I just ask can can I you're you're raising something that I think is really crucial and and you're right and I've
heard this also from Iranian officials there are different camps of thought in Iran including in the power structure um
on this ISS issue. You know, the Israelis and the United States clearly were uh finding themselves imshed in a
quagmire and Israel's interceptors were running low and the infrastructure of the US military in the Persian Gulf had been damaged to an unprecedented degree.
And I think that there were many people in Iran and in the broader axis of resistance that felt that the Iranians
actually had Trump painting himself into a corner and that this pause of two weeks essentially allowed them to
restock to prepare for another round and also stripped Iran of immediate tactical leverage.
Yeah, that's that's a good point. But I hear from my military friends or military experts friends uh that you
know you can't just rearm as a US and Israel because anti-defense missiles are
not produced on mass. They can't be. The Iranian political leadership's decisions have at times left even their supporters
confused and agast by agreeing to the twoe ceasefire. The political leadership of Iran had effectively told its enemies
that there was no red line for Iran and it will always be ready for talks no matter how much it's humiliated by the
US and Israeli terrorist. But this may be changing. Iranian Supreme Leader Representative to the IRGC Abdullah
Sadi now says that Iran will only negotiate if the enemy accepts its conditions.
Trump chickenening out is another example that the IRGC needs to stop the Iranian political leadership from entertaining the Americans and the
Israelis. There is a strong view amongst the Iranians, particularly its young population, that now is the time for Iran to stop trying to be the nice guy,
as has been the case with a few Iranian politicians in recent past. I will leave you with this fascinating clip from
Thran in which an Iranian woman captures the moment when she goes to fill up her car. This video is a slap to all those
propagandists in the west who waste no opportunity to defame Iran and its women. Watch the video and decide what
kind of a country Iran would have been if it wasn't punished by the West with illegal sanctions for 47 years.
13 minutesHi friends. Today I've come to get gas and I'm going to show you how it's done in Iran. I just arrived here and it looks like there's a bit of a lineup.
Oh, they're moving. Okay, they're moving. Maybe six or seven cars ahead of me uh before getting to the to the
station over there where the big billboard is. That's the station.
And this is the lineup that is now moving ahead of me. That might be about five cars, but it's moving pretty
quickly now. So, in order to get gas in Iran, you need one of these carts. It's uh basically a rationing system.
It's used to allocate gas to each car,
individual car. Normally, you get something like 60 L per month. And uh that 60 L is super subsidized. Something
like one cent, one American cent per liter. So, it's very cheap. If you go
beyond the 60 liters per month, then you enter the next tier,
the next tier might be 3,000, maybe 2 cents. The next tier is also in the cents. It's still cheap. And then um the
third tier is the free tier. So So there are three tiers. The first tier you get 60 a month and it's super subsidized.
And then a certain number of liters in the second tier. And then the third tier is called the free free rate essentially tier. You can get as much as you want.
Uh so I need the card. And also what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask someone to uh to do it for me. I don't like to
pump gas. And this is a treatment that you can get here as a woman. I mean a lot of women do it themselves, but I
hate the smell of gas. We're already here. So this was maybe a 5m minute wait. I'm already at the station and I'm
just waiting for one line to free up to go in.
So, it freed up and pretty much cleared out completely.
So, an entire new wave is coming in right now.
Now, in a minute, he's going to come in and ask me for my card, which I'll put over here.
So, this happens with your with your debit card as well as like the cards,
these cards, the gas cards. When you're paying for something at the store,
instead of you tapping your card or swiping your card and entering the password, usually you give your card to
the cashier and they will ask you for the passcode. John, you just asked the passcode again. So, they would ask your
passcode and then you say it out loud just like I did right now. And um and they put it in and they they charge you
and they give you a receipt and the card back. And the same thing here, like I'm yelling out my passport in the gas station, but it doesn't matter. It's
pretty safe. No one cares. Everyone yells out their passwords. And I'm going to give him my bank card, too.
So, I just yelled out my bank code as well. My full tank came to 60,000 to
which is about uh it's less than half a dollar, less than 50 cents. And then I gave him uh 100 instead of 60. I paid 100 for his own tip.
So my total was around 75 cents which is insane. Like you would think 75 cents
maybe it's it's very cheap for the US but it's very cheap for here as well.
Imagine uh with the 100 tomand 100,000 tomand which I just paid. You can't even get a a meal at a restaurant. That's how
cheap 100 is. But you can get a full tank of gas. Maybe the whole lineup and getting gas and everything all together
took about 10 . And that's how you get gas in.
That's it from me. Thank you very much for your support of this platform and our journalism. If you haven't subscribed to my channel, please do so
because that's one of the many ways you can support independent journalism. God bless you all.

[admin]

Nuclear Chief Kicked Out Of Pentagon After Trump Blocked From Codes
Jack Cocchiarella
Apr 21, 2026

Political commentator Jack Cocchiarella reacts to an insane report about a nuclear chief being kicked out.



Transcript

It is not hyperbolic to say that we have never been in more danger with Donald Trump as president than we are right now
in this moment. His cognitive decline has only exaggerated the worst elements and impulses in his personality. Donald
Trump's war on Iran has led to war crimes abroad and restrictions of our freedoms at home and his purging of the
military. That is an obvious opportunity for Donald Trump to eliminate checks and balances as Mike Johnson and John Thoon
bend the knee to him. Which makes this story today so scary. The story of a top
nuclear official being removed from the Pentagon hours after another story broke about Donald Trump being denied the
nuclear codes by his joint chiefs. This is a man out of control. It is time for the 25th amendment, especially as those
closest to Donald Trump are warning of the mass destruction he wants to carry out. And before we get to this top nuclear official being removed from the
Pentagon and the official response from Hegsth's team, I want to start with that very warning from Tucker Carlson. So
where does this lead? Well, on a practical level and a spiritual level,
they converge in the same place, which is the use of weapons of mass destruction. So on a practical level,
on a strategic level, if you're at the Pentagon gaming this out, like how does this work? The president of the United
States keeps laying down markers. You can't go past next Tuesday at 2 p.m. or whatever. You must open the straight or
else you'll be living in hell. As if we're not there already.
And a certain point what we're doing is revealing that we've exhausted conventional power. If there's
some tricky way to open the straight of Hormuz by air, probably would have done it by now because we are on a path to
plunge the world into global depression and famine. And that's not hair on fire panakinism. That's math.
30% of the world's fertilizer, 20% of its energy. Yeah, that's a global depression and famine.
Tucker Carlson warning about the threat of Donald Trump using weapons of mass destruction is not to me the normal
attempt at getting clicks that Tucker is after right now. He is connecting some pretty obvious dots. Mark Leavvin is
constantly talking about the end of World War II, a a a clear enemy of Tucker Carlson's, but someone who has
been instructive of Donald Trump's foreign policy, saying that sometimes you got to sacrifice a lot to save a
lot. He is clearly clearly referencing nuclear warfare. And at the same time,
you hear Donald Trump this morning say he would have solved Vietnam in . There's one solution that Donald Trump is talking about. It's not his fake bone spurred ass going to war.
No, it is nuclear warfare. So Tucker is not exaggerating. He is not being crazy.
He's not trying to get clicks. And oftentimes I do think Tucker is trying to get clicks. What he is doing is connecting clear and obvious dots that Donald Trump, the man who said he would wipe out an entire civil civilization,
is trying to escalate, which is what made the removal of this nuclear official so scary, especially in the context of this reporting. Patrick Webb
writes on Twitter, "Breaking, during an emergency White House meeting, Donald Trump reportedly attempted to access the
nuclear codes, but was blocked by General Dan Kaine, according to former CIA analyst Larry Johnson." Newsweek also wrote about this alleged story.
Larry Johnson, a retired CIA analyst,
claimed Trump tried to access nuclear codes, but was stopped by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar chimed in with the same sentiment that I share. Nobody is safe as long as this man is in
office. Impeach now. Congresswoman Omar is right. Nobody is safe with Donald Trump as president, especially when
there has been a strategic effort to purge the military of highranking officials who either would likely oppose
Donald Trump or of course when it comes to Pete Hegath's firing spree. Anyone who is a person of color or a woman. But
Donald Trump has done everything possible to make the military believe they serve him, that they cannot stand in the way of him. When he visits bases,
he asks for his supporters and people who are the best looking to stand behind him so he can get the biggest cheers.
Donald Trump wants you to believe that the military is his, that he is in control, and that he can do whatever he wants, even if it is a war crime. He threatened Democratic senators,
Democratic members of Congress who said,
"Do not follow illegal orders." And now this story, it's terrifying. Army places nuclear safety official on leave for
leaking sensitive info during OMG undercover report. James O'Keefe, who has regularly caught high level
government officials talking in situations that are compromising using hidden cameras, published undercover footage on Tuesday, alleging that a
senior US nuclear official disclosed sensitive national security information during a conversation with a stranger,
prompting an internal investigation in immediate administrative action.
According to O'Keefe, Andrew Hug identified as a chief of chemical nuclear shy responsible for oversight of
nuclear and chemical safety was recorded speaking candidly in a public restaurant setting. The footage released by
O'Keeffe purportedly shows Hug discussing classified or sensitive topics ranging from US military operations to nuclear policy and
intelligence methods. O'Keefe wrote on Twitter, "Breaking news. Top US nuclear chief caught leaking sensitive national
security information to stranger reveals army chemist who was exposed to US chemical nerve agent. Confirms US strike
killed children in Iran. Discloses US plans to kill Iran's new supreme leader." In the video, Hug is heard
making remarks about potential action against Iran's leadership. if he doesn't change his ways, yeah, the United States
is going to kill him. He also allegedly described intelligence gathering tactics and informal terms during the
interaction. The easiest way to get intelligence, send a pretty girl, talk to the guy, I have to resist your eyes.
Following publication of the footage,
O'Keefe reported that Hug was escorted from the Pentagon and placed on administrative leave pending an
investigation. The US army army later confirmed that an inquiry is underway.
In a statement provided to O'Keefe, Army spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said, "We have placed Mr. Hug on administrative leave
while we conduct a thorough investigation into this matter. We have an administration right now in which the
president of the United States is an obvious and clear cognitive decline,
where the Secretary of Defense is a drunken Fox News weekended fill-in anchor, and we have a top nuclear chief,
a top official overseeing nuclear weapons that Donald Trump allegedly wants to use and is being blocked from
using, but is certainly threatening to use. that official is being escorted out of the Pentagon because he ran into a
girl who had a hidden camera was recording him and he spilled the details
of our plans in Iran and the war crimes that Donald Trump has committed saying that Donald Trump and Pete Hegsth were
responsible as we know through extensive reporting for the striking of a girl school. That that's the information that
we're learning. That man was escorted out of the Pentagon.
Top nuclear chief escorted out of the Pentagon. Does anyone feel safe even remotely? Like what even what even type
of question is that? Does anyone No one feels safe. How could anyone feel safe in this moment right now? Donald Trump is being allegedly blocked. And like
let's be honest, thank God Donald Trump is allegedly being blocked from accessing the nuclear codes. And we have
buffoons leaking secrets to pretty girls at bars wearing hidden cameras. This is crazy.
This is crazy. Who feels safe. I promise you I don't. And this is just again
whether it is related to Donald Trump or not, another example of why we need the 25th Amendment now more than ever. You
know, I've been I've been battling back and forth on this in my own head, and there's a lot of smart people who have talked about it as well. You know, Tim Miller was was batting this back and forth. I JD Vance isn't better. Like,
obviously JD Vance isn't better. I don't know if he's worse. Um, he's controlled by the same special interest. He's equally evil. He's a disgusting person.
He's a slob. He's a political chameleon.
He'll do anything. Do I think JD Vance would start a nuclear war? I I I don't I
really don't. I don't. And if that is the place that we're at, oh my god, how have we gotten here? Like sometimes you
have to sit back and let the words come out of your mouth. Right now, I am debating whether or not I think that our
Peter Tealf funded vice president who is a liar and a ladder climber and
cares nothing but for his own ambition is a better option to our cognitively declining 79-year-old president,
narcissistic, sociopathic,
sex criminal, financial criminal, war criminal who wants nuclear for war to make himself feel tough and better about his
obvious cognitive decline. That is like the internal battle that I'm having with myself. How did we get to this place?
Like, doesn't that seem crazy? The 25th Amendment, impeach them all,
put them in jail. And this is the type of stuff that I'm talking about when I'm like, I I don't want normal when this is done. I don't want normal. And I don't
want to treat the people who gave us this as normal. We're going to have to find a new way to communicate with them, which is probably just going to be like,
you know, feeding them conspiratorial slop that they can buy in and like trick them into doing what what is right
because like you can't convince the people who voted for Donald Trump to to vote in their best interest. They're just too stupid. And I'm still and will
always be deeply angry with these people. But everyone in this administration jail, are you serious? Like this is gross negligence. Is this elder abuse?
Could we put them in Could we put them away for that? Like Donald Trump is not equipped to be the president of the United States. Donald Trump isn't
equipped to do more than like play golf three times a week and scream at his shows in the in his home and his family
be like, "Ah, you know, grandpa, relax a little bit. Maybe put down the Big Mac, put down the ketchup bottle. That's it."
And so the fact that we've allowed this and that the media has so badly failed in applying any pressure to the
administration or these stories is a shame. And we are going to look back disgusted with everyone who allowed this
to happen. The removal of a top our top nuclear chief in the same 24-hour period
in which Donald Trump allegedly is being blocked from the nuclear codes. Does anyone feel safe? Does anyone feel safe
about the war that we're waging on behalf of Israel whose nuclear weapons we're not allowed to ask about by the way? We're not allowed to examine, not
allowed to check. We're not even we're not even allowed to ask if they have them, which they do. And if you do,
you're an anti-semite, a conspiracy theorist,
and and allegedly Netanyahu has been threatening every American president that that he will start a nuclear war with Iran if we don't get on board with
theirs. And maybe Donald Trump will be like, "Well, if you're going to do it,
I'll just do it myself." Boop. Unless someone stands in the way, unless we don't have officials being removed from the Pentagon,
it is wild. It is wild. It is dangerous. It is scary. Oh my god.
And anyone who is in this administration, you're complicit. And every Republican in Congress, you're complicit. This is dangerous. And we are
going to continue to call it out. I'm going to be as hair on fire as I need to be, which is very hair on fire. Um because that's the type of attention this deserves. And if you want to
support that, as always, you can hit that subscribe button, leave a like on this video if you stuck around to the end. Drop a blue heart in the comments.
Keep on fighting, y'all. Don't let them silence you. And until next time, I'll see you

[admin]

IRAN WON’T STRIKE FIRST — BUT WHEN IT DOES, EVERYTHING BURNS | Larry Johnson
Apr 21, 2026



Transcript

We're going back in. You know, the United States is going to start bombing again. Israel has started will attack. You know, so this this isn't, you know,
I think I think Iran is playing it exactly right up to this point. You know, they're they're not acting preemptively. They're waiting until they
are attacked, but they're they're they're on a hair trigger. the minute there are launches headed in their direction, then Iran's going to reach
out and start taking out uh they'll take out the electric infrastructure and uh and you know, let's see how the folks in Dubai do with no air conditioning,
you know, and I'm I'm I'm hot. I'm back. I'm in Dubai.
I'm hot right now with the air conditioning on. [laughter]
So, the last thing I want is my air conditioning off, Larry.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's the threat but the threat is significant though. Sorry to interrupt you. The threat is significant. Iran said if there if there's a return to war they'll
strike the Yanu power pipeline the fyra oil facility and the straight home the babel men straight will be closed by the Houthis. So Iran has made it clear that
1 minutethis time around the response will be gloves off and that's 30 along with the shadows that's a third of global energy.
So Iran's response is at least based on their threat they're not you know very different to the Iran at the beginning
of the war even before this war and that worries me. Yeah, I saw a friend of mine suggested that um the IRGC is acting
outside of what Kamani uh the Mushtava Kami wants to do. And I had to remind him said, "Dude,
Kami was a member of the IRGC. He fought as a 17-year-old, as an 18-year-old with the IRGC. Those were his buddies. the
guys that are now, you know, here we are uh almost 49 years later. So guys who
are 55, 56, 57, 58 years of age that are IRGC, they're his contemporaries. He's
he's not he's not going to sell them out at all. This is, you know, I think there's a there's been a myth pushed in the West that there's some great division within the Iranian government.
You know, I think that's nonsense. Um but, you know, prove it. prove it. Uh just said Iran has informed the American
side they will not be attending the negotiations on Wednesday. Yeah.
You know they were very clear. Lift the blockade.
Lift the sanctions. We'll show up. Keep the blockade intact. Sanctions. No,
we're not going to show up. So, um,
you know, people make this I I I've seen the same sort of nonsense when with with the Russians in terms of their negotiating position. There was always
this, oh, they'll make they'll agree to a ceasefire in place or they'll, you know, no, they wouldn't. They've made it very clear the four areas that they
annexed then the Donbos, you know, Dat Lance, Zaparisia, Karasan, that's theirs. They're not giving it up. And so
Iran's made the same point. Here are our 10 points. Ful these are the starting point. You want to negotiate with us.
Fulfill these 10 things. And apparently they uh the administration initially said yes. And then Trump didn't focus on
it, didn't read it. Uh JD Vance said yes. And then boom, Trump reverses it 180 degrees.
Um I want to go back to the point the risk of using nukes. Um, we've talked about this throughout the war.
Can you give me your thoughts on on how significant is that risk on the Israeli side, the Iranian side, some dirty bomb,
and on the American side, especially with Trump's recent comments? Because it seems like this is something that worries you. Well, uh, if if they are if
either country were to use nukes to a level to quote destroy Iran
and uh, you know, with the the the radiation and such would make it almost uninhabitable. So, whatever utility you
would have from thinking you're going to get control of gas and oil fields, they might be contaminated in ways that you cannot use it for a long time. So, that,
you know, that's smart. let's let's let's further reduce the supply of oil and gas in the world. That'll that'll work out well on the global economy. Um
you know the the use of a nuclear device it's a tactic. It's not a strategy
uh because it it'll kill a lot of people and could and I said can contaminate an area depend on how many you use. The the
reality is Iran is so big. Yeah. You could knock out certain centers, but that's no guarantee that then the United
States could cobble together a large enough army to go land and take take control of the place. I I so you got to step back and say what is the strategic
purpose and within that do you think China and Russia just going to stand by and let somebody use a nuke? Pakistan let someone use a nuke like this. Yeah.
So it's um it's one of those things that sits in the back of the mind but in terms of actually being able to use it in a practical fashion where you can say
if we do if we drop this bomb this is going to be the result. This will help us achieve this strategic goal. I don't
see the strategic goal as feasible with that.
But so you've been very critical of Trump's mental state. Tuck has shown very similar concerns on his show. He's been one of the more vocal people about
it. Alex Jones and others have had similar concerns as well. Um,
how worried are you about that? And I'm very taking that to the nukes.
Yeah. No, no, I'm very worried. Um, that is, uh, yeah, Trump could give that order and it's going to be up to somebody in the Pentagon to say no, like
reportedly General Kaine did the other day. uh Trump he's you know the his
wildcard style of negotiation you know make extreme position and then you know take take uh you know back off from it a
little bit that when he was in full uh possession of his faculties say you know
three years ago four years ago fine that was that was a reasonable strategy but but right now he has lost lost that
critical thinking ability because you know step back and evaluate this. You're you've got all of these people that were
your supporters that have enormous they have large podcasts, you know, like yourself. When you look at
the audience that Candace Owens has, the audience that Tucker Carlson has, you know, right there between them, it's all
about 11 million people. That's not inconsequential. Joe Rogan's like at 20 million. Alex Jones, I forget how, you
know, he's up several million. Um, and so you've got this podcast universe and then you get to I'll call it tier two.
It is not to say that they're not not important, but you know the ones that are in the like the Judge Npalitano
range up to he's almost to a million now or uh um there there's a a guy Balhalla
VFT, a former Green Beret uh special forces guy. Uh but but and then Dave
Smith uh who's a comedian. When when you alienate all that group and you decide that your approach is to attack,
not to how how can I get these people to support me? How can I build support?
He's I mean, if you're thinking critically, you you go just it's not like how many people can I drive away?
How many people can I attack? And that's where I'm saying the judge the lack of judgment. now that he can't distinguish
between friend and foe and his attacks on Marjgery Taylor Green, his attacks on Thomas Massie because you know what?
Watch what's going to happen to Massie uh when when he get [clears throat]
he'll be reelected and probably be reelected by a significant margin. I think Democrats will come out of their way to vote for him. Uh but u this this
guy he's running against Ed Galin, I know Ed fast steady, he was a Navy Seal.
uh yeah not not not widely liked within the SEAL community but uh but he he doesn't he doesn't have the brain power
that uh Massie does. So, but but this this whole strategy when you look at Trump trying to alienate so many people
and and you know the the name of the game of politics is getting support,
building networks, building so you've got a momentum. you got all these people behind you and you know it really raises
the question that the the the dam the information in the Epstein files may be so damaging
that uh he can't um he he'll he'll go to any lengths to keep that quiet.
There's a full statement by [laughter]
by the IRGC. Let me see I'll read it quickly. See if there's anything that stands out for you. Um, Iran has formally notified the US through
Pakistan mediators that will not attend Wednesday's scheduled negotiations in Islamabad with no timeline set for future rounds according to testing news agency. The decision that follows Oh,
no. Sorry, this isn't analysis. The full statement is the following. My apologies. There [clears throat] it is. Iran,
that's according to Tasim, the full statement. Iran's decision not to attend in Pakistan on Wednesday is final.
What's the reason? According to the information obtained by Tasmine reporter quote one despite all the media buildup and speculation by US officials and
outlets the Iranian negotiating team has for various reasons informed the American side via Pakistani intermediary that it will not attend the talks on
Wednesday. At present there is no clear outlook for participation in negotiations at all. Relevant for relevant sources believe the reason is
as follows. After Pakistan entered as a mediator and requested a ceasefire in behalf of the Americans, Iran accepted a ceasefire and subsequent negotiations
based on a 10-point framework it had proposed which was accepted by the US.
Pakistan explicitly conveyed that the US had accepted this framework.
However, shortly afterwards, the following day, what Iran describes as US breaches of commitments began. First, by what is described as a complete
violation of his commitments, the US did not impose a ceasefire in Lebanon on Israel, which created serious obstacles for several days. Additionally, during
the first round of Islamabad talks, the US raised numerous additional demands that effectively contradicted the initial framework leading to the negotiations into a complete deadlock.
From this perspective, despite setbacks on the battlefield, the US appeared to believe it could compensate for them through maximalist demands at the
negotiating table. In any case, a few days after the Islamabad talks following what is described as a definite definitive Iranian threat of a missile
strike on Israel, the US was compelled to implement the ceasefire in Lebanon.
After the after that, Iran's foreign minister Rachi announced that Iran would reopen the straight of Homos to commercial shipping with the framework of the original ceasefire agreement.
However, this move was immediately met,
according to the report, with what Iran views as hostile US actions, including the continuation of a claimed naval blockade in re claimed naval blockade.
Keyword in recent message exchanges over the past few days, the US has not backed down from what is described what are described as excessive demands or
positions seen as contrary to Iran's fundamental rights and no meaningful progress has been achieved. For this reason, Iran ultimately announced today that under these conditions,
participation in negotiations would be a waste of time as the US is seen as obstructing any viable agreement.
Therefore, Iran will not engage. This has been communicated to today via the Pakistani intermediary and Iran will not attend the Pakistan talks tomorrow in
order to fully safeguard what it describes as the rights of its people.
Yeah. I mean, you know, this is Iran is in the strongest negotiating
position. you know, they they've got the chokeold on the world economy and you know, the full effects of that are going
to they're starting to be f felt this week. And you know, just watching I was checking out the stock market, the Dow
Jones, uh it's it's now fallen almost 500 points since this announcement and and Trump was it was being pumped up.
And the same with oil prices. They're claiming, "Oh, uh, well, we gota, we're near." Oh, man. The the deal is we're we're right on the cusp. Just, you know,
all we got to do is cross a tea and we're done. It was all I mean,
it was just blatant lies by Trump. None of it was true. And, you know, Iran Iran
was very clear in its position. This is what we want. This is what we expect. Do this.
And if you don't do it, then we're, you know, we're not going forward there. Iran, I think, was anticipating this.
They've been mining heavily mining the straight of Hormuz over the last couple of days, I'm told. So, um, the and just
in great volume. So, you know, the United States uh, the reality is the United States does not have a good military option to get the straits open.
that has I really say it has no military option that is going to could be carried
out without a significant loss of life and equipment and it would require a land invasion.
And then when you get to talk about a land invasion, you have to deal with the issue of how the hell do you get your your troops on land? you know,
understand that, you know, they got the 82nd Airborne, but you you can only on the the largest plane they'd probably
fly would be the C130. I doubt they do it out of a 141. That that is a larger aircraft. I think that can carry twice
the load that a C130 can, but a C130 can carry only 90 paratroopers with combat loads. So, you know, just do the math.
If you're going to drop 2,000 guys down,
you're going to have to have 22 C130s because if you want them to drop about the same time, well, and then you get that kind of mass formation in the air.
Good lord, talk about sit and duck for air defense. Um, and the United States only has 330 350 of those C130s. So,
they're talking about close to using up about 8%
of your total total force. So an air assault really isn't an option. And the only other way is a maritime assault.
And to get a maritime assault, you got to get your ships close to shore. So really, the United States has no no easy
15 minutesway that it could put ground troops in action. So, you know, rule out the whole ground force nonsense. It can maybe run
a special operations raid, but even even that comes at significant risk.
Why can't Trump just walk away which I think what will happen? I still think believe that will happen but that's the best solution like I I
Joe Kent told me this treaty just said that as well that he thinks that's the most likely scenario. Joe Kent said it's the most the best scenario right now the
best case we could do. Um Houd who I spoke to earlier said no that could probably be the only way to to solve
this. It's like, don't you agree that's that's the only option available and that's the best option even for him?
Yeah. The situation of the world is just catastrophic, Larry.
Yeah. He's he's got to step down, but he can't. He's a narcissist. He's a narcissist with early dementia.
You know, the deadly combination. He's he he cannot think rationally. And anybody that challenges, See, this is
the key. anybody that challenges him, he
[snorts]
lashes out at them and basically he goes, you know, we'll call it
figuratively nuclear on them. Look at what he did to Marjgery Taylor Green.
She was she was a a loyal supporter of his, but the only thing she did was
insist that he keep his promise. He was the one that promised to have full transparency on the Epstein files and
released those. But once he got into the White House, and I don't know if it was Israeli blackmail or something else, but
he did a complete 180. And because she dared to support the releasing of the files, again, something he had
campaigned on, he attacked her in the most vicious way. and when and calling her a traitor and then when when she is
getting death threats including death threats against one of her children and she calls gets in touch with Trump
on that and Trump basically said you deserve it. Yeah.
Yeah. I mean not a shred not an ounce of empathy that that you know people that don't like Donald that was not the
Donald Trump of 10 years ago. Donald Trump of 10 years ago was seen as an empathetic person, one who was, you
know, I had a I had a buddy. He was a one of the most senior FedEx pilots. I mean, he was his his employee number was
under a hundred and uh he had a he flew with a guy that had flown for Trump and
and that pilot didn't could say he had nothing but great things to say about what a kind person Donald Trump was. And
I emphasize was because what's happening now is he's he's turned into like a a mean drunk. He's vicious and hateful.
And when he directs that hatred of people like the Pope and Tucker Carlson and Candace Ow and again the attacks on
Candace to calling her ugly comparing the suggesting that Breijit Mron is some
sort of you know beauty. I mean you know you got to wonder what's wrong with Donald Trump's eyesight for starters.
So, as I said this, when you put all this together, there is something mentally wrong with Donald Trump. He needs to be removed from office. It's that simple.
If we're back to war, um what are what what are the military options that the US has on the table? Because that would dictate on whether Trump decides to go
back into war rather than just walk away. What has been done that hasn't been done? Obviously, striking the infrastructure and stuff are threats that the US has that Trump has made.
Also, you could talk about them, the intelligence services, knowing where all the top commanders are, the ones that attended Islamabad. I'm assuming they'd be traced back, you know, in your time
at the CIA, you probably give us a better idea of how easy or difficult it is to track the people, you know, traveling from one country back to Iran,
but that would give the ability for the US, not saying it's going to be effective, to do another decapitation strike.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think I I think that entered into the the calculations of of the Iranian delegation or
potential delegation uh because they recognized last time that there they had legitimate concerns that they were going to be targeted for assassination while
flying out. My understanding is they flew out on Pakistani flight planes which would have given the the US and
Israel pause because you hit a Pakistani plane, Pakistan has nukes and they could nuke they could nuke Israel over that or
something like that. So um you know the reality right now is the West is Trump is trying to escape from this mistake.
Yeah. But but he can't bring himself to accept Iran's conditions. And you know, Iran has been quite clear.
You know, they will reduce enrichment and they will allow the nuclear facilities to be inspected. But you know, again, that's been the red
herring. That's not the real reason that the West is so obsessed with getting rid of Iran. It is that Iran is an
independent Islamic republic. Iran is not beholden. They're not the tool of any other country. They are all they
have now an a relationship uh as almost allies with Russia and China and they are in the process of integrating into
this new financial order that is moving away from the petro dollar moving away from dollar uh hegemony. So you know
we're it's a new world getting birthed and those those are don't come about in peaceful ways. It's it's it's violent
and bloody, but the the United States can continue to launch bomb. You know,
most of the most of the weapons they have launched have been standoff and they're running out of their standoff
weapons like the JASM that can be launched and that travels like 500 miles or the Tomahawk. Go ahead. You were going to say
you saw Yeah, you saw the report that came in from CNN over over the the 7we war. US estimated to have used 45%
of their precision strike missile stockpiles.
Half of them, Larry, in 7 weeks, half of the THAD interceptors, 50% of the Patriot missiles, I know you've been very vocal about those numbers higher.
Yeah, that number is wrong. It's is more like 90%. But that number but that number already is catastrophic and the 20 30% of tomahawks and 20% of other
advanced systems um but that number which I know you said the number is much higher we've talked about this a few times but even that number which you consider
a best case scenario is really freaking bad.
Yeah. Yeah. And and and it's not like they simply uh go to Lockheed Martin and say okay we're going to pay you more
money. I mean Patriot missiles go between four and $6 million a piece. Um,
so, um, we just we're going to give you more money. Open up, work a day, seven days a week, and then you
can, uh, triple your production. It's not that simple. Plus, it requires they require rare earth minerals, uh, and
tungsten, which which China also controls, that they don't have the materials to actually the supply chain
intact to be able to boost production dramatically. So, you know, the United States in in a very odd this whole
affair between the war in Ukraine and now this war of choice with Iran has has just shown how vulnerable and weak the
United States is in terms of its supply chain.
But that's why I think that Trump will walk away. I really think so. I just it just makes no sense otherwise. It Well, I hope you're right. uh you know
but uh I I think you're again you're making the assumption that he's thinking rationally and logically and that's why
we diverge and that's where I think what's going on with him is it's more emotional and you know when people are reacting
emotionally without logic and you know you try to reason with them it's you know that that loss of that loss of filter in the in the prefrontal globe.
It is significant and there you know I'm not trying to play doctor on on air but you you can't help but notice this kind
of change in Trump and it is and again and the rule the benchmark I'm using is
how is he dealing with people that have been his supporters and then they disagree with him on something and they
he vicious viciously attacks you know he doesn't attack them on the substance You know, it'd be, you know, like you
and I may disagree on this, but just because you say that you think Trump should walk away, I don't sit here and
go, you know, Mario, you ignorant you're stupid, you're you're a You know, number one, you'd stop talking to me if I was talking that way.
But number two, it doesn't it how does that help? I mean that that kind of irrational emotional outburst
it's I mean it's wrong. You know you and I can show hey we can disagree on issues. We can politely disagree and we
don't have to hate each other in the process. But Trump would responds with this hatred. This is not rational.
If we're back to war, how would it look like? What happens next? I'm assuming that the US would strike Iran first.
Iran is more prepared. There's been reports [clears throat] that even one of the cargo ships that uh the the Sentcom boarded was a Trump called it a gift
from China to to Iran. We have reports that China is supplying Iran with various military equipment, air defense systems. That could be why the US, which
I know you don't think the blockade is effective, but could be why the US is trying to blockade Iran, not only to choke off their economy, but maybe block Iran from China from being able to deliver certain um military equipment.
But but they can't because you know one you got the railroad that runs from China uh through uh Beckistan, Turk
Manistan and into Iran. So they can haul it over the railroad, they can haul it via trucks and they can haul it via air.
They don't need to do it. You that again that's why this notion of quote blockading you you can blockade Cuba. All right,
Cuba is an island. You can encircle it.
You can genuinely blockade it. You can't blockade Iran. Iran's got they got the Caspian Sea open you know all all Russia
has but they can't export the issue is the issue they can't they can get they can get receive military equipment true they can't export oil so it will choke off their economy if this located is
successful because 90 whatever percent comes out of the straight home that choke that chokes off the world oil I mean true
that's that's like uh Donald Trump's taking a revolver putting two two rounds in it spinning the chamber and saying oh let's play let's play Russian roulette I'll go First, [laughter] you know what?
What kind again the thought process?
Look at look at the logic of this. In the by the second or third week of the shut off of the straight of Hermuz,
Trump and Scott Bessant lift the sanctions on oil on Iran and Russia.
Why? because they wanted to make sure the supply stayed up because they recognized that if the supply shrinks,
it's going to have a dramatic effect on prices, which it has, and and the ability of some countries to even function. It's going to cut back on
navy. So, they they they kept that intact. And then all of a sudden, boom,
we're going to take steps and policies that are going to reduce the supply of oil. In fact, Bessant last Thursday initially talked about reimposing the
sanctions on Russia as well as on uh Iran and indirectly on China. And then
within , they sort of reverse it. They say, "Well, okay, everything that's out on the sea as of April 17th,
uh it can be delivered up until May 17th, but then we're going to, you know,
we'll impose these sanctions." So, it's like, what's the policy? Are you trying to boost oil supply to try to stabilize
prices? Are you trying to cut oil supply which is gonna spike prices? Again, this is this is where you got this lack of
coordinated rational thinking. And I blame actually Susie Wilds a lot on this. It is the role of the chief of
staff of the White House to say this is our message and everybody is going to adhere to it. You don't. But you know,
this is this is like a bad I call it a bad jazz band. Everybody's doing their improvisation without any harmony,
28 minuteswithout any coordination. Everybody's doing their own thing. So Scott Besson says something on the very day that they announced that, okay, we got to cease
fire. Then Scott Bessant makes announcements that completely contradict the Iranian demands.
Yeah, it doesn't make sense. That's why I said this is I stopped thinking about this in terms of logic and rationality because it's illogical and irrational.
That's what we're seeing.
You seem really upset at where we are. I don't see you upset often.
Yeah. No, this this is so this is so unnecessary.
And you know people are going to die and and civilians, children, they're going to die. And for what? just, you know,
this this need to dominate and control Iran and and again I am I am just
infuriated at the lies that are being told about Iran. You know, we we keep we got this story painted that during the
1980s, Iran was on this terrific, you know, the spate of terrorism attacks between 1980 and 1988 and it was just,
you know, the United States was doing minding its own business and here was Iran attacking us. Well, once you look at the actual story,
when you realize the United States was backing Saddam Hussein and using the CIA, the CIA was working through the
Gulf Arabs who were funding the war that Iraq was carrying out against Iran and all the Iranians who were killed, the US
supplying chemical weapons essentially through the pre precursor chemicals, the United States supplying the intelligence telling pinpoint where people were,
where the units were, what to attack,
all all of that. So guess what? Iran retaliated. Iran Iran was not out immediately attacking the West. It was
in response to the US attack and support for a variety of terrorism. And but yet we we continue to paint Iran as this
villain when the the the hard facts are the United States through its proxy Iraq in the 1980s continuing on with groups
like the MEK has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
Um just looking at another piece of news here. Um okay so nothing nothing new.
Just confirming JD Vance is not attending the the talks obviously. Um,
just going back to the question though of how a war would look like. What what do you I know what Iran's capable of. Yeah,
I know what they've threatened. I know what the US is capable of. Again, based on what we've seen recently and the people I spoke to and the threats that Trump has made. How would a continuation
of war look like? How would the escalation ladder would look like? What would the initial targets be? And how could things get out of control? And how
and and what would that lead to? I know there's many questions, but it's kind of walking us down of how what could happen in the next few days, weeks, and months.
Yeah. a as soon uh so Iran's going to get uh early warning through its own systems but also I think through the
Chinese and Russians that there is that the US and Israel are launching as soon as aircraft are in the air headed
towards uh Iran. Uh I don't think Iran Iran's not going to sit and wait to be for the first explosion. they they will
act at that point then uh against against the Gulf States, the UAE in particular, Saudi Arabia. I I think the
Saudis and UAE are the two primary targets. Qatar and Oman have been more uh sensible in negotiating uh with Iran.
Um, Israel will be hit immediately and any any of the air bases, any of the outposts in Jordan and Saudi Arabia that
are being used to launch US military attacks, they will be hit uh and hit hard. So, and and Iran is now in a
position that they've had two weeks to to prepare and so within that preparation, they've looked at a v
variety of target packages. Uh I I think they're going to uh they will especially concentrate I if if the attacks are coming against their power centers.
They're going to take out the power centers in uh in Saudi Arabia, UAE,
Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and also probably go after the oil pipeline that extends
over to the Red Sea. Destroy that. Would they go immediately to you know how how would they hold some cards close to
heart to see how the US escalates? So what what will the US really strike? Who will they target? What will they target before Iran decides how to retaliate? Or could Iran Iran respond [clears throat]
very differently and just go go guns blazing basic in negotiations?
Yeah. No, you raise a you rais a fair point. they may they may decide uh to uh they'll they'll want to get an
assessment of how broad the strike is now on paper and this is circulating you
know I know Danny Davis heard it from four different people uh in London so clearly it's not a the plan that the
United States put on the table for for conducting the attack it was a massive attack massive And so I I'm I'm you know
I if if four guys in London know about it, I I guarantee you the Iranians know what the plan is and and so if if they
see the that number of aircraft take off, they'll know what's coming and so they'll know how to respond. So it's Can
you tell me more about what what what do you know about that plan? I've heard about it. Daniel told me about it as well. Not sure about the latest reports you've talked about. What do we know?
How massive would it be? because a few of you have have echoed these same concerns. A few people I've spoken to and said [clears throat]
um so they want to take out all all of the power centers. They want to take out the oil refineries and they want to take
out the you know as you said the bridges and so they're going to be hitting a lot of civilian infrastructure and it's going to be the plan is for wave after
wave of aircraft. Now this goes back to the point you raised earlier about the using up supplies. They don't have an enormous inventory.
If I I know that the the US military planners right now fear that if any US
aircraft actually fly over Iranian territory, the risk of them getting shot down is quite high and the odds that the
Iranians will capture a pilot or two are quite high. So, this is uh um you know
there there's a part of Trump that that has been revealed in these recent articles by the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times that uh also show
he's he still has enough sense to recognize that uh he could get get into
real deep water. He's already in deeper than he wanted to be. I mean, he had been convinced this would be a quick in-n-out like Venezuela, and instead now
we're on week eight and heading into week nine. So, this is uh um this is
this is consequential. Uh but you know I I'm afraid he he is he's thinking more emotionally
instead of rationally because you go back and look look at the account that was leaked to the New York Times on the decision to go to war that you know
Trump was advised by General Kaine yeah this this is going to be difficult by Secretary of State Rubio saying what
what BB Net Netanyahu told you was just uh horse manure cleaned it uh and change and change the animal. Uh
but uh and same with JD Vance. The only one who was gung-ho, let's go do this was Pete Hseth.
And you know now now you see sort of in the Washington the Washington tango where they
published a story in the Wall Street Journal two days ago talking about the conflict between uh the uh the army
chief the the secretary of the army civilian uh who is a close bud a law school buddy of JD Vance and Pete Hexf
and you know so I think the guy's name is Driscoll so they're they're in conflict. So whenever you see those stories come out, that tells you, you
know, one side or the other is being prepared to be jettisoned. So but but you've got you got all this on that Trump ignored the advice and went ahead
and did it. So I'm sure he's getting advice now about don't do this this we we all we're going to do is expand the
war. And you know, the one concern is because you know, you know how hot it gets there starting in May, it may
already be warm. But but if you got to a situation where the you did not have a reliable power source and air
conditioning shut off, Dubai frankly is not Dubai cutter uh is not livable. I was on the ground in Qatar at Aluded Air
Force Base back in like May 20th in 2006 and I was I thought when I heard that
people were coming to that country for vacation, I was going are they out of their minds? I mean, it's like going to visit a pizza oven that's covered with
brown dirt, you know, and it got they're in the middle of a dust storm, you know, sandstorm kicked up as well.
Um, so the US mainly mainly used precision bombs. So, so bombs dropped out of the fighter jets and JD dams in the attacks on Iran more than the
missiles. So, doesn't that if you count those bombs, you're saying they don't have the So, doesn't that give the US the capacity to continue the war?
Unless the argument you made that the fighter jets can't really go over Iran after No, they'll continue the war.
Yeah, they'll they'll continue the war and further run. The more they shoot,
the more they're going to deplete the inventories. And again, those inventories in the back in the back of the minds of the military planners, the
real target in all of this is China, not Iran. [laughter] So, you know, here's China just sitting back laughing.
They're watching the United States deplete the inventories that they would want to use in the event of a conflict with China. And the same applies for
Russia. You know, Ukraine, Ukraine used to be, you know, at the top of the list of the priority of getting getting
weapons, etc. Not anymore, boy. They're off the list.
Yeah. After the shooting of the F-15, do you think the American strategy if they decide to attack Iran would change after that incident?
They're they're going to try to keep him out. U my understanding is that uh one of the things that has happened in the
past two weeks is a significant and dramatic upgrade in uh Iran's air defense system.
Okay, there's a statement that just came in. Uh Trump has essentially extended the ceasefire. All right. So I'm going to read out. So this is good news.
Statement of Trump based on the facts that the government of Iran is seriously fractured not unexpectedly so and upon the request of Field Marshall Asimanir and Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan.
We have been asked to hold out hold our attack on the country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal. I have therefore
directed our military to continue the blockade and in all other respects remain ready and able and will therefore extend the ceasefire until such time as
their proposal was submitted and discussions are concluded one way or another. Trump. Yeah. Taco.
Trump taco again. But you know there there's no split in the Iranian leadership. That's just a western
fabrication, Western fantasy. Iran has already has made his position quite clear what its demands are. Those 10 points. They haven't they haven't
deviated from that. And Trump's insistence that he didn't keep the blockade up. Iran is going to retaliate.
There will be a strike against a US ship most likely and then that that's going to probably force Trump to retaliate in
response, but you know the US struck first in taking the and taking the Iranian ship. So the Iranians aren't going to let that go.
But they still they still control the straight of Hormuz. And uh you know this I said this u Iran's not going to launch
a preemptive strike. So that's the good news.
Now, this they're this uh this dance, I guess they're going to look for some way
to to allow Trump to save face where, you know, he'll be able to say,
"Oh, yeah, the Iran the Iranians now have met our our demand on X, Y, or Z."
But Iran Iran's not going to go back to the table until the blockade is lifted.

[admin]

Professor Seyed Marandi: Iran's Resilient Leadership
by Daniel Davis / Deep Dive
Streamed live 3 hours ago



Transcript

Who in the heck is in charge in Iran? Is it the IRGC? Is it the political leadership? Are they having a knockdown dragout battle in between the two that
somehow is going to I don't know make things helpful for the United States. It's not clear what even the hope is.
There's a lot of chatter on the American media today and especially throughout the West that there is it's unclear who's even in charge on the other side
and therefore that's probably the reason why we haven't got a negotiated settlement and why this war in some form or another continues on to try to
determine what is fact and what is fiction in this we have back with us we are delighted today to have professor Sed Mandi professor at Thran University
and former adviser to Iran's nuclear negotiating team and combat veteran we would point out uh professor welcome back to the show.
Thank you very much for having me. It's always a great pleasure. Well, it's always a pleasure for us to have you on because uh you're always just given the
viewpoint of how you see things from your perspective and uh you know it's we just get inundated here in the west with only one perspective with how the west
is saying that things are and we never get the balance of here's what the other side is saying and then of course to always like we do look and see what is
the ground truth and to figure out who's closer to the actual truth and who's not and uh it's not going to work out very well for us that analysis today as we're
going to see here and first of all as I opened up with there's a lot of chatter in the US about that is the are the uh
IRGC folks in charge is there a big debate inside here's how Fox News put it just earlier today President Trump's 3 to 5 day ceasefire
deadline coincides with the arrival in the region of a third aircraft carrier strike group the USS Bush in the coming days Harris because you reported and reminded
everybody that Iran never actually agreed to the ceasefire so that's interesting because they accused the United States blockade in the straight of Hormuz of being a violation of the
ceasefire, but they expect it to be honored.
Well, the real question, Harris, is who is negotiating on behalf of Iran who is in charge there, and we really still are not clear at that po at this point. The
2 minutesRGC and the RGC Navy does one thing and their uh speaker of parliament says another thing to Pakistan. So, it's very difficult to know what is actually
happening and what is happening with the leadership of Iran right now.
Let's just start off with that last part. Professor, is it hard to figure out who's in charge in Thran?
No, it's it's very clear. Uh it's like saying that um the US Navy uh hijacks a
Iranian ship and then the secretary of state says something and then someone says it's not
clear is the US ar is it the US armed forces that's in charge or is it the secretary of state? That's not how it
works in Iran. It's like the United States. There is a a leader. There's a Supreme National Security Council. In the Supreme National Security Council,
the pres the president is the head,
excuse me, the president is the head of that council. There are members in that council according to the constitution.
The leader has two representatives and uh there's a chair to that council which the president and the leader agree
upon. All strategic decisions are made in that council. So right now the
negotiations that we see that take place between Iran and the United States, the file is in the hands of the speaker of
parliament who was also um a colleague of mine at the University of Tehran and he was also a a general during uh the war uh when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran.
He was a volunteer turned general I mean turned military officer and he grew went up in the ranks till till he became a
general. But um so he is the he the the file is in his hand and the file is given to him by the supreme national
security council with approval of the leader because when the supreme national security council makes a decision it
4 minutesalso has to get the approval of the leader. So whatever the if the supreme national security council makes a decision and the leader does not approve
it goes back to the council to to be revised. So uh his status is very clear.
The file is in his hand. Now what the uh Iranian Navy uh whether it's the uh the
regular Navy or the IRGC Navy uh the IRGC Navy works in the Persian Gulf and
the regular Navy in the Gulf of Oman in the Indian Ocean.
Whether whatever the IRGC does uh in the Persian Gulf, it is with the authority
of uh the armed forces and the Supreme National Security Council. So nothing is
uh not no uh policy is pursued without the consent of
of the council and the state. So it's very so you know this sort of debate really doesn't make much sense. I don't
I I feel that it came this uh this notion of divisions in Iran came after a
tweet that the Iranian foreign minister made when uh when Netanyahu finally was forced to accept the ceasefire.
Mr. Arachi the foreign minister tweeted that the straight of hormos is now open and
some people in Iran misunderstood him thinking that Iran is relinquishing control of the straight of hormos.
That's not what he wrote. Maybe he could have rephrased it in a different way but that's not what he said. He was basically saying it's open but there
will be a certain mechanism through which uh people uh ships can go through the straight and then u what happened
was that afterwards Trump said well the straight of hormonal is open now but uh
we're not removing our siege and after that Iran reversed its decision so it wasn't because there was
some difference in there were differences in tan where the foreign minister declared one thing and then the state reversed that
decision later. No, it was the state authorized the opening of the straight
of Hormos under certain conditions because the Israeli regime was finally forced to accept the ceasefire. But since Trump refused to end the siege,
which was a violation of the ceasefire,
they said, "Okay, since he's not going to remove the siege, then we are going to continue keeping the straight of hormones like it was before." So the
decision was reversed because of Trump and it had nothing to do with the foreign minister making some sort of
decision on his own and that being reversed. No, what the foreign minister said was uh authorized and the decision
to reverse that had nothing to do with the foreign minister. It had to do with uh Trump. And there was one other thing
that was been been repeated quite a bit on Western media as another example is that uh there was a release of a tape by
an IRGC Navy uh officer speaking in English over the radio and said we are the ones that decide when this trade is
open up not some idiot with a tweet and everybody assumed that that meant uh foreign minister basi and they said see
they're even dogging their own guy in front of everybody. What do you say to that? No, that was a response to Donald Trump's tweet which he said the straight
I think he went and said the straight of Horosa is now open and it will never be closed again. Something like that and
that and but he then added that uh either in that tweet or around that time he said that I'm going to preserve the
um the siege. So this was a response to Donald Trump. had nothing to do with the foreign minister and uh no one in in in
the armed forces is going to make such a statement about the foreign minister.
But you know that's how it works in in the western media. They they they create this narrative and then they they're
constantly finding bits and pieces to put in there to make their narrative seem make sense. But this was a direct response to Donald Trump's tweet saying
that the straight of hormones is now open. And I think he also said it will never be closed again or the Iranians promised never to close it again. I'm
not quite sure what it was. I maybe um um you can you may have the Yes. In fact, that's actually something I also wanted to ask you about. He said
that the Iranians promised me that it would never be that they would never again close it, that they would give us let us walk in and take all of their
reprocessed material uh and that they would stop uh having association with their proxies. He said the Iranian side promised him all of those things.
Yeah. So that's that uh um naval officer
uh that text obviously naval officer was obviously responding to Trump's claim.
So then the question comes in uh if there's there's no dispute between then one wonders what is the purpose? Why why would the United States be trying to
sell this when it really obviously it's not going to have any impact on the Iranian side. They know who's in charge and they know how their system works.
But then we had this other uh conversation here uh and you can see this one from another Fox News person who said, "Yeah, there there is a big issue of division."
I do think there's a real factional division uh and that the RGC dominated leadership right now believes that time
is on their side. They think they can absorb the costs better than we can absorb the costs and at this point they feel if they hold out they will have to
give up less in these negotiations. So I think at this point it's a test of us.
The right answer to that test is to preserve the blockade. The blockade is an answer to what they're doing in terms of trying to exert their leverage over
the straight of Hormuz. Let's not underestimate the impact of a leadership dominated by those who are really
ideological and who think that any concession at this point actually detracts from that ideology and reduces the following they have among those who
are also the most ideologically committed.
Now the some of the things he said in there actually are plausible and and the least of which is that it's a it's a test of wills. I think that's that's pretty clear. But he says the solution to that is to maintain the blockade. Um,
and then somehow that's going to force Iran to capitulate. So, I got two questions for you on that. Number one,
will a continued blockade be able to uh to hold or make Iran capitulate to give in on the terms that they've said that
they want? And then number two, how long do you think that Iran could go if the blockade stays in and still remain viable?
11 minutesRight. Well, first I'd like to, if it's okay, to to address what he was saying about the guards. The guards uh don't
make the decisions. The guards are have members in the supreme national security council. But the leadership of the
guards are chosen by the leader. So whether it's the regular army or the guards, they both have a presence in the
supreme national security council. The president has a presence, members of his cabinet have a presence, and the leader
has two representatives. So this is a this is constitutional. And so you have different uh branches of government and
the state that um that are present in the Supreme National Security Council.
So to say that it's the guards doesn't mean anything. It's like saying the US army or the marines they believe that we
should maintain uh the um the siege on the Persian Gulf. It has nothing to do with the US Marines. the decision is
make is made in in in the white house uh in the you know the same is true in
Iran. So it it really doesn't make sense. I think it it is a part of that sort of
uh that orientalist narrative that you know this is uh that
non-western countries are not sophisticated. They don't have institutions.
Iran has very powerful institutions. The very fact that the leader was martyed on day one and so many commanders were
killed but the state functioned and uh people went to the streets and during for a full week we we didn't have a leader but the state the armed forces
were functioning the bureaucracy was functioning. So it shows that the state is very sophisticated. In this case the decision is not made by the guards or
the army or the president or any no individual. It is the council that decides. The council may give someone a
file like right now Dr. Gibbove he is in charge of the negotiations but his his
uh his authority is given to him by the council itself. Now with regards to the
siege I think that the Iranians feel that uh they will definitely outlast the Americans uh because the siege is
working both ways. uh on the one hand they're preventing uh goods from coming
into Iran, food uh grain and uh medicine or supplies for factories that produce
medicine and of course they're preventing exports of oil and gas so that they can of oil I mean so that they
can um purchase those supplies for medicines and food and so on. But on the other hand,
the oil and LNG and helium that and the the fertilizers that are produced by the
countries that uh facilitated the US attack on Iran, meaning Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahin, and Qatar.
Iran continues to halt their exports because Iran sees them as hostile entities. Iran was going to allow them
to uh to export in accordance with the ceasefire deal, but since Trump decided to uh impose uh and keep his siege in
place, Iran said, "Well, we'll do the same." So, the global crisis is growing
by the moment. Um the ceasefire was a couple of weeks ago from you know we were supposed to have the straight of
home was open back then for 10 11 days Netanyahu didn't let it happen and now Trump is not is preventing it from
happening and uh this crisis is going to continue to grow and grow and what we're seeing today is the tip of an iceberg.
the crisis is much bigger, excuse me,
15 minutesthan what we're actually seeing and it's going to get much worse in the coming days and weeks. So, I think the Iranians
believe that they can e they can easily outlast the Americans especially because uh this is a a war for survival for
Iran. For the Americans, it's a war of choice. And when uh that pundit spoke of um ideological I mean u I think that the
the ideology that's behind this war is ionism. So there's you know I think that's about as ideological as things
get and and uh how long because you you mentioned some pretty important stuff.
Not just that Iran's not getting any money because of petroleum products leaving through the Gulf, but they're also not receiving uh important food
stuffs and and uh other things. Now, I guess you can still get some limited amount of things through the Caspian Sea and perhaps overland through some of your other borders, but how long might
it get before it gets to like some really critical situation for the population of Iran?
I don't think it's going to be a big problem anytime soon. I'm sure there'll be lots of hiccups but we have to keep in mind a number of thing a number of
things. One is that the Pakist we have the Pakistani border. We have the Afghanistan border which links us to China. We have Turkmanistan which links us to Central Asia, Russia and China.
The Caspian Sea that you rightly mentioned which links us to Russia,
Kazakhstan and uh and Kazakhstan. Then we have Azarai and Armenia, Turkey and Iraq. So we have
many countries that border us. On the other hand, the Iranians have been making a lot of money during the past three four months. Ever since the US
began the buildup in the Persian Gulf region or or the the region in general,
the price of uh oil and and other such products have been going up. And during the war and u during the first 10 days
of the or 8 n 10 days of the ceasefire, the Iranians were
selling their oil at huge quantities and at a very high price. And also Iran had a lot of oil on the sea that it has sold because difficulties in selling oil.
They had a lot of tankers full of oil and a lot of that has been sold. So Iran has earned more money in the last three months than they probably earned in the
last couple of years. And one other point is that Iran is also it has a long history of sanctions.
during the first Trump um years uh when he imposed those max reimposed the
Obama's maximum pressure sanctions Iran literally for two 3 years was exporting
almost no oil very little oil so Iran is a country that is used to sanctions it's used to these difficulties it can manage
but the global economy which is facing this unprecedented crisis uh won't be able to cope
Sorry about that. Uh so then the question is going to be if if Iran can sustain itself through
that period of time then you just pointed out a number of reasons why they would be able to not the least of which is because they have a history of being able to suffer in part because of the
sanctions we put on them. The question is what about on the other side? Now,
there is some information out on CBS News today that says, "By the way,
Iran's military is more capable than Trump administration is publicly acknowledging. Says the uh Islamic Republic of Iran maintains more military
capabilities than the White House and the Pentagon has admitted about, now this is what it says. Uh about half of Iran's stock piles of ballistic missiles
and its associated launch systems were still intact as of the start of the ceasefire. Roughly 60%." This is one of the more important things. President
Trump commonly says that the entire Iranian Navy has been destroyed, but they say roughly 60% of the naval arms is still in existence. Uh and then you
go on to Iranian air power that's been significantly degraded, but it's the missiles that really count the most. And so if you take a look and you say, okay,
well, Iran has the ability to sustain itself for a long time with its population. its military is still quite
robust after 40 nearly 40 days of substantial bombardment. And then you take a look and you see that the American side, this is on CNN, uh
through that first 40 days, we used approximately 45%
of our strike missiles that we had in our inventories, global inventories are gone. Half of the THAD interceptors,
half of the Patriot missiles, and 30% of the cruise missiles. And one would have to reasonably ask who can sustain this
longer if this war goes back into a hot zone. How much longer could the Iranian side sustain their their side of the military equation?
Well, this is something that at the beginning of the war I I said and I also said it before the war that the Iranians are definitely going to outlast the
Americans. First of all, Iranian missile and drones that far more than 60% are are intact. Most of the Iranian
underground bases have not even been opened yet. They haven't been used. Iran has been using certain bases because
they're known and they don't want the other bases to be uh to to for the Americans to know exactly where they are
and how large they are and how they can bring out the missiles and so on. So they're constantly the Iranians are using a series of underground bases and
uh that has been going on. Now uh at right before the ceasefire they decided to open four more underground bases but I'm not sure they even use them because then we had the ceasefire.
Iran's factories Iran's factories that produce missiles are all underground.
The factories that produce drones are all underground. They're producing missiles and drones as we speak. So the
Americans have, you know, they they never were able to destroy any of the bases, nor the missile production facilities, nor the drone production
facilities. In addition to that, they haven't touched the Iranian uh key naval assets either because they're all uh
speedboats that carry missiles and they are all in tunnels underground. The same is true with Iran's key air defenses.
They're all underground. and Iran's air force, all of its uh advanced jets are
in underground installations. So, Iran has been digging tunnels for decades now because it knows that the United States
has much greater firepower and the be best way to protect their assets is through these tunnels. And I would also
add that uh in addition to all these D tunnels, the Iranians between the two
wars, they purchased a huge number of um um decoys uh from China and they produced some
themselves. So many of those launchers and those anti- anti-missile systems and
um or anti-aircraft systems and and helicopters and planes that were destroyed were were
um decoys that are very advanced that they give off heat and they're they're quite extraordinary the things that the
the Chinese have made. So uh I think and also this is Iran. It's it's you know they're everything is produced inside
the country. Uh the United States when they not only do they have a shortage of many of the missiles and many of the the
ammunition that they need, but they have to bring it from uh all the way from the United States or from the Pacific. For
Iran, it's all done locally. Iran's military industry is in in a in a sense
it's it's not dissimilar to Russia. It's centrally controlled. It's owned by the
state. It's owned uh therefore uh u by those very same people who who uh who
need a weapon system. So it's not there to make money. It's there to produce what's needed. and therefore they are
much more swift in production in producing the goods that are needed.
It's not like in the United States where the private sector uh builds all these
very expensive systems and they're few in number and they run out quickly and it takes years to uh rebuild them or to or to make in replacements.
Yeah. In the case of Iran, it's a very swift uh the missile factories built their missiles very swiftly because again it's stateowned.
The state when they need something the production line is active. They don't argue about profits or about uh um
shareholders or anything like that. And it makes it uh in time of war at le in in particular much more effective. Well,
then if if if one examines and takes takes it at the at the face value that the Iranian side has a
leadership, they have a hierarchy and so just forget about this nonsense about somehow there's this division that's going to cause it to fall apart, which never made sense anyway. It's not like
we don't have disagreements all the time in time the inside of the White House.
That's that's legend here in the United States. It's normal. So, forget that part. So, if people think that Iran's going to fall apart from internal
division, that's nonsense. Then we look at the physical realities on the ground. You just talked about a lot of them.
Gary was showing some of the video of the underground facilities. Many of you say hasn't even been used. Those that have been used have been attacked many times, but they haven't been able to be
knocked out. And the production continues on. And then on our side, you see that our our weapon systems and our ammunition are running low because we can't turn things around very quickly.
And so we haven't been able to bring Iran to heal after 40 days. Therefore,
one would say, where does that leave us right now? Now, President Trump, I don't think anyone could deny this. He definitely blinked by not start
restarting the war after the ceasefire period came to an end. And the Iranian side definitely seems to be aware of this. Here's just a few of the comments
uh by some of the Iranian leaders right around this time. Um uh this this fellow here says, I think he's one of the
senior leaders for the IRGC. Uh he says the enemy is not in a position to determine the timing for us. Although we
have uh not left the table of diplomacy given the enemy's repeated deceit and trickery. All our focus is on the battlefield against the enemy. We have
to keep vigilant eyes watching both the front lines and the rear the hands of our fighters are on the trigger. So whether it's going to the the war is
going to be returned. You see uh Bay here is the foreign minister spokesman.
Just one thing, he this is not a member of the IRGC. He is the head of the judiciary. I mean, I'm I'm I can't see very well. Sorry, my glasses are I mean,
my eyesight isn't very good. But if I'm not mistaken, that is the head of the judiciary, the head of the three branches of government, the president,
the head of the judiciary, and the speaker of parliament are all members of the Supreme National Security Council.
And of course the president uh president peskan is the head of the supreme national security council. Then there's
a chair of the supreme national security council who's also very important because he deals with day-to-day affairs
after drani was martyred uh during the war he has replaced he has another person has taken over his position he
and he is the chair. So he is a the the head of the judiciary. The reason why he's making such statements is because he is a member of the Supreme National Security Council.
Got it. Okay, that makes more sense. Uh and the foreign ministry spokesman on the possibility of another round of negotiation with America. He says
diplomacy is a tool for securing national interest and security and wherever we reach the conclusion that the necessary and logical grounds are in
place to use this tool to realize Iran's national interest will not be thwarted by the enemies from achieving their
nefarious goals. We will take action. Uh this comment here I think is even more to the point and I'd really like you to talk about this one. Uh he says that the
this is this Iranian diplomat says we will not return to negotiations without the lifting of the US siege. We will not
negotiate under threat. Uh communication with Pakistan intermediaries is underway and implementing Iran's conditions. We
will not go to Islamabad before the siege is listed. Is that just a a forward uh coming statement just to make
people think that stuff or does he really mean that that Iran until the blockade is dropped by the United States, Iran won't even have a negotiations?
No, Iran won't negotiate because that's exactly what happened during the last few days. The Iranians told the
Americans uh through the Pakistanis that the siege on Iranian ports is a violation of the ceasefire and as long
as the ceasefire is violated then we cannot uh we cannot go any further because if the United States has certain
commitments that it will not carry out under a a current agreement then what's the use of discussing further agreements
because the United States won't carry out those commitments. either. So the only way for the Iranians to be able to just that's exactly what happened with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the Iranians
said we're not going to allow those extra ships that that belong to those countries that have been hostile towards us, those Arab countries that helped the
Americans bomb Iran. They they were supposed to allow more after the ceasefire to allow ships from those
countries to exit the the Persian Gulf through the straight of Hormos. And then when uh Netanyahu started carpet bombing
Lebanon and slaughtering people uh and in within like a few minutes he killed hundreds of people. He was he did that
to crash the ceasefire. And then you recall that the Pakistani uh prime minister said that no Lebanon is
included. Ultimately Trump came and said it's not included but Iran remained steadfast. They said they said it's included. we will not allow those extra
ships to go until the ceasefire in Lebanon is implemented. So this is for this is the same thing here in that case
ultimately Netanyahu was forced to accept. Iran was about to let those ships go through. Then Trump said uh I'm
not going to uh I mean the straight of is open now but I'm not going to end the siege and then Iran reversed that
decision. So Iran was and this was if if you know many people say Trump is seeking an offramp. That was the ideal
moment for him to uh to to use as as an off-ramp when the Iranians said okay now after the ceasefire in Lebanon we're going to allow these ships to go out.
Trump could have said okay I'll lift the siege and progress is made. The Iranians have uh opened the straight of hormones and you know say that he can say the
Trumpian things. they capitulated, I won, I you know, whatever. But that could have been the offramp, but he did
the exact opposite and that is that he escalated and uh we are now where we are now. I want you you mentioned Lebanon
that that's also an interesting point here and I hadn't heard much about it from the Iranian side lately because there's been so much focus elsewhere but that was a central uh caveat to the
agreement on the original ceasefire and as you pointed out the Israelis went back on that within hours uh and then Trump worked hard to and then Israel
said okay we had this meeting in in the United States with Lebanon and everybody's agreed to it said that they'll agree to it etc. But then we see
that uh since that time since that time the Israeli ceasefire liation uh Lebanon ceasefire has been violated 222 days
31 minuteswhich makes it sound like there hasn't been any kind of a ceasefire at all. And so the question is will the Iranian side
require that to be uh reimposed or will they try to make some kind of a deal even if they can just get one with the United States while that war continues
on? Well, what happened in Lebanon was that the Iranians said there must be a ceasefire. Now, the Lebanese president
and prime minister were are were installed by the Americans and so
they are basically uh they do the baiting of the United
States. They they said that no, we don't want the Iranian ceasefire. we will follow follow we will pursue a ceasefire
through our own force our own actions our own a different channel and they
helped Netanyahu and Trump disrupt the ceasefire. So effectively what the prime minister of Lebanon and the president did was they gave the Israeli regime an
opportunity to continue bombing Lebanon and they did that especially the prime minister because of his
dislike for effectively the people in the south of the country. He wanted them weakened and so um but the Iranians said
we don't care what the Lebanese prime minister or the president says this what this ceasefire was agreed upon and until it is implemented we're not going to
abide by our commitments and when those ships don't go out the the global economic crisis grows. So Trump from my
understanding began to put pressure on Netanyahu, but he also he Netanyahu and the Lebanese prime minister and
president wanted to pretend that this ceasefire there will be a ceasefire but not because of Iran when reality it is
because of Iran. The Lebanese prime minister and the president have no leverage against the Israeli regime.
There's nothing. I mean, the the you know, when the ambassadors met in Washington, it wasn't because they had
nice tea to drink that the Israeli regime decided to accept a ceasefire. uh the night before the ceasefire was
ultimately implemented. Uh there was supposed to be a ceasefire and uh Netanyahu went into the uh cabinet
meeting. Um the the and um he they didn't have the ceasefire. The next day,
Iran threatened and said, "Look, we're going to go back to war if uh this ceasefire isn't implemented." And so the following night, the ceasefire was
implemented. So it had nothing to do the Netanyahu, Trump and the Lebanese prime minister and president wanted to pretend
that Iran had nothing to do with the ceasefire, but in reality it had everything to do with Iran and not with
them. So these two people are not really um you know they they they're um they're fully coordinated with the United States.
So then the question is going to be but sorry but I I didn't respond to the at the final point. Yes, you're right.
They are vi the Israelis are violating the ceasefire and they're doing it in Gaza. I mean, every day they're killing children in Gaza. Every day they're killing women every single day. I mean,
if you if I mean, people who check their uh you know, their Twitter accounts and follow people in Gaza every day. They're
killing them. They're doing the same right now. uh they killed two people in Lebanon and they uh and they injured two
apparently female journalists and one is right now trapped under the rubble and they're trying to dig her out but the Israelis keep threatening the first
responders. It's it's amazing how the Israelis have, you know, they just kill and kill and kill and they target women,
children day and night. It's become for them it's it's the these people have zero value. It's just they're just used
35 minutesto killing. But in any case, you're right. The ceasefire is being violated.
But the difference between the ceasefire today between Hezbollah and the Israeli regime is that
in the previous ceasefire, Hezbollah did not respond to the violations. This time around, Hezbollah is saying that whenever they violate the ceasefire,
we'll strike back. And they have begun doing that.
And so of course the Israeli side of many says see our reactions are a defensive reaction to that. How do you get out of this circular everybody keeps
firing it on how how does this end and what will Iran do in relation to the Lebanon situation?
Well, Iran will continue to support Hezbollah and any agreement uh Lebanon,
Yemen, Iraq, uh Gaza, Palestine, the West Bank, they'll all be included. uh
and the Iran's leverage. It has lots of leverage. It has its regional allies. It has its own military capabilities, but it also now has the straight of
36 minuteshormones. One of the I mean the most catastrophic mistake that the United States made in this war is that it has
effectively made Iran take over the state of Hormos. That is something that I've been speaking about for many years.
I said if there's a war, these things are going to happen. And you know,
western analysts and pundits or I guess they thought that this was all a joke.
But um that's exactly what Iran did. And if they had studied the way in which the Iranian armed forces are building these underground bases uh across the country,
they would have understood that this this was the plan all along. And if the United States attacks, they're what the Iranians are going to do is that they're
going to fall back, let them take some places. And then from their other under their under other bases that they've been created for the creating for the
last couple of decades, they're going to start targeting Americans on the islands or on the mainland, wherever they may be. So they've been preparing themselves
for decades. And anyone who just looks at some of the footage of the underground tunnels, these are cities and they exist everywhere. They've been
doing this for decades and uh you know I I just find it and has the same sort of
tunnels too. So I just find it extraordinary that they miscalculated this. Right now the Iranians have the straight of hormones that changes
everything. The balance of power has shifted towards Iran and away from the United States, away from the Israeli regime and away from those Arab family
regimes in the Persian Gulf region. So now the question is what next? Now as of last night, President Trump said, "Well,
I'm going to give more time for the UNI Iranian side to come up with a unified position." Whatever. It was just whatever he said didn't really matter.
What matters though is what's being reported now. Last night he just said he's postponed it. Now then today, Foxes is saying that the extension for RAM will only last three to five more days.
38 minutesA Fox News confirmed on Wednesday. So that's the first time we've heard now since that time of time period meaning implying that we're close to returning
back again within two to four days from today. And who can say when that's going to happen? The question is uh the
Iranian side is as I showed you our viewers a minute ago, they're pretty pretty bold that they're not even going to return to the negotiations until the
US lifts the siege. And obviously if we go back to fighting uh that's only going to it's going to take it completely off the table. So, where do we go from here?
Uh, if if this gets back to fighting, well, the Iranians are planning for war.
The um the uh when the ceasefire was coming to an end, uh they were expecting
uh conflict and then we heard news that Trump uh had from on his behalf on on
behalf of the Americans extended the ceasefire. But the Iranians are planning as if tonight he may violate the ceasefire and just carry out an assault.
Because remember, we've had we have that experience in the past as we were negotiating, they secretly conspired,
attacked Iran uh before the 12-day war and uh before this war. Of course, it wasn't as if Iran was deceived. Iran
knew that they were going to attack, but they were negotiating anyway because they wanted the world to see that Iran negotiates. just like Iran went to Islam
is Islamabad uh the previous week. The reason why now it's not going is because the Iranians
are saying you have commitments based on and based on those commitments uh we we can you know we we have we
cannot because of those commitments that you're not carrying out we cannot go any further because if we go any further without you carrying out these
commitments that is going to be that's sending a signal to you that in future you you you can do the same thing about your other commitments. So the Iranians
40 minutesare saying you have to first abide by your side of the bargain and then we can go on and it's sort of like me I me
selling someone a car and then he pays the money and I don't give him the car and then I say well I have another car do you want to buy this one too? Well
the guy is going to say well first give me my the first car and then we can talk about the second car but you can't uh take my money and not give me the car. I
would be a fool to go and uh to to go on to the next phase. So, but in this case,
the the smart thing that the Iranians did was that they kept leverage. And what is that leverage? It's the straight of hormones. So, when the Americans
don't abide by or the Israelis or the Americans or whoever, they don't abide by their side of the the bargain, the Iranians say, "Okay, well, I'm not going
to abide by abide by by my side of the bargain." And that is very effective because of the global crisis.
So, so let me ask you this question. Uh I guess the the the morning of the uh when Trump eventually uh punted and and
said uh you know we're going to give more time. On that morning he had an interview on CNBC in which he said uh you know Iran has already agreed to
everything. I've already got a great deal. I think we're going to have it off. And then uh one of the the persons on the CNBC was asking him um but if
there's no deal, if they don't agree to it by the deadline, will you go back to fighting? He said, "Oh yeah, I'm planning to go back to fighting." Now, I don't know if it was coincidental or
not, but almost right after that interview, you posted this on X and saying, "Everyone should immediately leave the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi
Arabia, sailors on ships in the Persian Gulf must also prepare to evacuate their ships. This is especially urgent for ships in the straight. time is running
out. You wrote now obviously that that went off the table because President Trump did what he did. But if this statement by Fox is true and within two
to four days from now he may again restart it, does that warning still hold?
Oh yes, absolutely. And the reason and the reason why I did that tweet is so that people can be prepared because if
Trump does carry out his threat to destroy Iranian uh electrical power plants, Iran is going to target power
plants in in Israeli regime power plants, but also the power plants in these countries in the Persian Gulf.
And these countries are all deserts and it's going to get very hot in in a few weeks time in 3 to four weeks from
now. the the heat is going to go up and up and up and these countries have a very hot summer. It's like five five and
a half to 6 months a year maybe. I'm not quite sure maybe five five and a half months a year. It's very hot and and
humid. So if they if the Americans strike Iranian electrical power plants,
uh I don't know if you lost my voice or not, but okay. If the Americans strike Iranian power plants, they can only do these
things with the help of these countries using their airspace, using their their territory.
So the Iranians are going to retaliate against them and of course the Israeli regime. When that happens, if they have no electricity
and then things get very hot, they have to leave. Everyone will leave. These countries will just collapse. They're
not like Iran. Iran has two very important mountain mountain ranges east to west uh in the north of Iran called
Albor and it has a a mountain range to the west from north to south uh and uh
these two mountain ranges are you know in the in the winter it snows the Zagros mountain range to the west north to
south and the Alborous ones east to west and the north right now above in the city of Tehran there are snow in the mountains so
44 minutesthroughout you know so we most of our agriculture is uh locally produced Iran is I think roughly 90% self sufficient
not sure about the exact numbers they may be exporting some things and importing others but generally they're self-sufficient and the temperatures in
Iran except for those desert areas they're very different from the Persian Gulf we have forests in Iran we have
lakes we you We we've actually this year we've had good rain. We had drought for 3 four years. This year it's been pretty
good. Um Thran less so but during the last few weeks better. Uh so it's you know Iran has no serious problem. If we
have electrical power electrical uh uh electricity problems we will it will be difficult but we'll survive. But they
cannot survive there with uh without electricity. So they will all have to leave. They'll have to get in their cars, drive across Saudi Arabia, go to Syria, go to Iraq, go to, I don't know,
Oman, go to Yemen, somewhere, but they won't be able to stay. And then if the there's fighting, then those ships in
the Persian Gulf, especially near the Straight of Hormos, they'll they'll they'll be in serious trouble. We already saw what happened today. Three
ships were struck. So this when I wrote this tweet, it was hours before the
ceasefire was about to end and the expectation was that uh Trump would probably res start the attack. So that's
why I wrote the tweet. But one thing that people should keep in mind is that the Iranians have worked very hard not to kill civilians.
3,3400 Iranians were slaughtered by the Americans and the Israeli regime. And
just one instance was those 168 little girls. But if you look at all them people that were killed in the five
countries in the Persian Gulf, they were less than 20. Less than 20. Despite all those um thousands of missiles and
drones that Iran fired at all these entities, uh only a handful were killed.
Why? Because Iran was very careful not to strike civilian targets. Whereas the Americans and the Israelis were striking
civilian targets. And when they were trying to assassinate people, they would assassinate them with their families.
They would assassinate them with the if they were scientists, they'd assassinate them with their families, with their neighbors. If they were military
officials, they'd assassinate them with their, you know, they'd bring down the whole building, everyone inside. That's not the way Iran does things. So in the
west they like to demonize Iran but all people have to do is go and use a search engine deepseek or a western search
engine and see how many um people were killed in Kuwait how many civilians or citizens were killed in
Kuwait in the Emirates in in Saudi Arabia and you'll see that the number is I think less than 10 something between
10 and 20 compare that to 3,300 3,400 100 in Iran. And of course, the
numbers in the Israeli regime are are low too because the Iranians were not trying to kill ordinary people. The Iranians were trying to strike uh
critical assets. So those who always like to demonize Iran, Iran is a country that opposes genocide in Gaza. The
supporters of genocide on the other hand are Iran's antagonists. In the war, the number of people who are killed,
civilians who are killed by the Iranians are a fraction, not even a fraction, are are almost nothing compared to the
number of Iranians who are killed. So that tweet was basically a warning so that people can get out of harm's way because that's a a significant
escalation. As you say, if those targets in Iran are hit, then the commensurate level in in the the Gulf regions will
also be hit. So the question is in Israel. So the question is though, if if the US doesn't strike that and if they
said, "Oh, all right, we're going to go after Har Island or Kashim or any any other target on the on the Iranian coastline somewhere." And at least
initially they don't go after those those uh those energy system, will Iran hit that anyway? Is it like you do one thing, we do everything or will it stay commensurate?
Well, we've seen uh how this has played out before. The Iranians only they only the Iranians only respond to escalation.
They don't initiate escalation. So when the Americans, for example, and the Israelis bombed the Iranian south par uh
gas field, the Iranians went and struck the gas field of Qatar and the Emirates in response. So they didn't strike
electrical power plants. But the point is that this time around what Trump is saying is I don't know tomorrow or the day what I don't remember the tweet he
said after the ceasefire we'll have uh electrical power plants day and bridge day. Well if that's what he's going to
do then that would be the Iranian response. If he doesn't do that obviously the Iranians are not going to strike electrical power plants in these countries.
Well, I guess in other words, the the Iranians will only escalate if they initiate and they
will only do it in order to prevent escalation. Uh not is it fair to say because if the Iranians don't do it,
then the Americans will definitely destroy Iran's uh infrastructure.
Right. So, is it fair to say then if the United States or Israel doesn't restart the war that Iran will not be the one to initiate the return to the conflict?
Oh yes. Yeah. I if throughout the years I mean Iran has never started a war already since 19 since the revolution
the Americans have imposed three wars on Iran. They they encouraged Saddam to invade the country. They gave him uh you know through through with US permission.
The West gave him chemical weapons. These Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf,
these very same regimes gave Saddam Hussein hundreds of billions of dollars.
then that would be I don't know a trillion dollars a day of money to to wage that war against Iran. I survived
two chemical attacks. Uh those chemicals were given by the Germans and funded by these Arab
the 12 day war. Uh and then this war but Iran since the revolution Iran has never initiated a war. In fact, in the past, I
think uh 300 years, the Iranians have never initiated a war.
Well, the history is what it is. Um well, listen, we really appreciate you coming on and putting some clarity on some of this stuff. So, at least everybody understands where things are
and what it's going to take to get this resolved because there's no easy way to get this done. I don't know how the President Trump is going to square this
circle. Uh but and actually that's what we're going to have in our next show here with Larry Johnson. is going to talk about what the American options are
given these Iranian realities uh at 2:00 here. So, just about from now,
you're going to see Larry Johnson and we'll get the other half of this equation. But thank you, professor, as always. We're grateful.
Thank you very much for having me. It's always a great pleasure and I'll be listening because uh Larry is an exceptional analyst.
Indeed, he is. That's why we're grateful to have him. Thank you very much and we'll see you all on the next Daniel Dais dive.
You know, we don't have sponsors because we hate to hit you over the head with ads. I don't like them. So, show a little love back. Subscribe, like, and send this to somebody you care about.

[admin]

John Mearsheimer: U.S. Expands Iran War & Divorces Europe
Glenn Diesen
Apr 22, 2026

Prof. John Mearsheimer argues that the failure to make peace with Iran can dramatically widen the war in the Middle East, while the rift with Europe and other allies widen. John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982.



Transcript

Welcome back. Today is the 22nd of April, 2026, and we are joined by Professor John Mirshimer. Uh, thank you again for coming back on, my friend.
It's always good to see you.
Good to see you, Glenn, and glad to be back.
So, u, I'm trying to make a bit sense out of the US strategy in the Iran war because it seems to me that Trump was in a difficult spot and he needed an out.
So he accepted the ceasefire conditioned on Iran's uh 10 points as starting point at least for negotiations.
Then he finally had it but he then moves forth with this blockade on Iranian ports and then there appears to be a
sabotage of the Islamabad talks. Uh I'm trying to make sense of this. I mean, is this was this only to get breathing
space to rearm and regroup or is did the Israelis intervene to keep the war going or is this just a unique style of diplomacy that um Trump is uh pursuing?
It is a unique form of diplomacy.
There's no question about that. Whether it makes any sense is another matter. Uh and I think it's quite clear it doesn't
make any sense. Uh I mean the bottom line here is that Trump needs an exit
strategy. He he just has to put an end to this war uh sooner rather than later.
And the reason for that is that he has no military strategy that he can turn to that can allow him to win the war.
There's just no military option here. As we've talked about before, if you go up the escalation ladder, uh it's the
Iranians who prevail, not not the Americans. So, there's just no military option. F furthermore, uh
the world economy is teetering. Uh and the longer this goes on, the more damage that's going to be done to the world
2 minuteseconomy. And by the way, if you do go up the escalation ladder, that'll really be another hammer blow to the world economy.
Uh, and this has political consequences inside the United States for President Trump. Uh, not to mention the fact that it has huge economic and social
consequences for countries all over the world. Uh, so he's under tremendous pressure uh to come up with some sort of
uh agreement with Iran uh that allows us to walk away from this. The problem that he faces is that he's incompetent.
Uh the administration is incompetent when it comes to diplomacy. And the best example of this is a subject you and I
have talked about adnauseium, which is the Ukraine Russia war. You want to remember that President Trump promised
when he came into office that he was going to settle that war. And in fact,
he said that he might even settle it before he moves into the White House.
And he's made a complete hash of those diplomatic negotiations with the Russians. It's really quite remarkable
uh as you have uh recorded in a whole slew of different interviews uh with a
variety of people over the past year or so. It's really quite amazing. So why would anyone expect him to be any more
adept in negotiating with the Iranians than he has been in negotiating with the
Ukrainians and the Russians? He's just not a good diplomat by any stretch of
the imagination. And to add to the trouble, he's got to deal with Israel and the Israel lobby. And this is a very
important issue, Glenn. The fact is that the Israelis understand that up to this point in time, we've lost the war. Uh we
meaning the United States and Israel. Uh we had a set of goals going into the war. Four main goals as you know, regime
change, uh getting rid of Iran's nuclear enrichment capability, getting rid of their long range missiles, and getting them to stop supporting Hamas,
um Hezbollah, and the Houthis. We failed on all counts. And on top of that, as everybody knows, the Iranians who did
not control the straight of Hormuz before February 28th and did not have a toll booth located in the middle of it,
now control the straight of Hormuz and have a toll booth uh located uh right there. Uh so the Iranians have won. From
an Israeli point of view, this is a disastrous situation because the Israelis view Iran as an existential
threat. You and I can disagree with the Israelis, but that doesn't matter. They think it's an existential threat. And of course, the lobby here in the United
States goes along with Israel no matter what. So, the end result is that Israel wants to continue the war. It's just
very important to understand that they want us to continue hammering away at Iran to try to beat them into
submission. And if we don't beat them into submission, well, we'll just destroy them. Uh do what we did in Gaza
to Iran. That's the Israeli view and that's the Israel lobby's view. So if you think about the situation in Ukraine
going back there and then you think about the situation with regard to Iran,
you see inept diplomacy on the part of the Trump administration in both cases.
But in the case of Iran, the situation's even worse because you've got Israel and the lobby leaning on him not to come up
with a peace agreement that reflects what's happening in the war, which is another way of saying which reflects the fact that Iran has won.
o Trump is veering back and forth between two positions.
one which is pushed forward by the economic realities and the realities of
what has happened in the actual fighting to uh work out some sort of deal. He he
has powerful incentives because of the state of the world economy and because of what's happened in the fighting to
cut a deal. He understands he has no military option. He understands we've effectively lost and he understands the damage that could be done to the world
economy. That tells him, let's cut a deal. But on the other side, he has the Israelis and he has their minions here
in the United States. Uh, and they are powerful and they're honeycomb throughout the entire administration to
put enormous pressure on him not to cut a deal and instead to play hard ball with the Iranians. So what you see him
7 minutesdoing is wavering back and forth uh between these two positions and uh in
the end we have been unable to get a ceasefire much less meaningful negotiations started. You want to
understand we don't even have a ceasefire yet because a ceasefire involved shutting down the fighting in
uh Lebanon between the Israelis and Hezbollah which has kind of been done and number two opening the straight and
the straight opened for one day and then because President Trump wouldn't take off the American blockade of the straight the Iranians put the blockade
back on. So we haven't even fulfilled all the conditions that were required for a ceasefire much less began to move
seriously towards an agreement. And all the time this is happening the clock is ticking on the world economy. And this is a very dangerous situation.
Is it possible though with the ceasefire that this could be a way for the United States to get Iran to fight the war on
America's terms? because this appears to be one of the things that has failed since the beginning. That is uh when the US attacked the it looked as if Trump
would have favored to do a little bit of bombing and then stop and uh the Iranians essentially didn't want to give
him this kind of um escalation control and they made clear that any attack would get a massive response. So uh
yeah, so shutting down the straight of Hermoose attacking the Gulf allies uh essentially denying the US this kind of escalation control. Now in the ceasefire seems to follow the same logic. Yes,
initially the US appeared to agree to this 10point plan at least as a point of departure to start discussions. Uh but then it seems to be this incrementalism.
Well, the US should be allowed to put a blockade on Iran. Uh should Israel should be allowed to bomb a little bit in Lebanon. US should be able to seize
or fire on some Iranian ships and to keep it I guess low intensity. Uh do you I mean is it is it is it possible that
it's just to get the war under control or is it the ceasefire gone gone wrong because uh uh I think Iran will probably
interpret this as a wider effort uh well whatever minor escalation there's now the overarching objective would be the
effort to destroy their nation or wipe out their civilization to use Trump's language. So do do you think this is has
anything to do with how the war is fought or just to bring it down the intensity of it and limit the targets that Iran are, you know, are targeting?
Yeah, I think it's a great question and let me give you my two cents on it. Uh,
I I think that what Trump wants to do here is he wants to use military leverage to get the Iranians to agree to
a ceasefire and then to come to the negotiating table. And he wants to use that military leverage to get a good
deal. Not a great deal. He's not going to get a great deal. uh you know he wants I think to get something that's better than the JCPOA
when it comes to the nuclear enrichment issue but uh but he he needs he thinks
uh military leverage to do that. So let's talk about military leverage.
My view is that any country has any great power I should say has three levers that it can use three military
instruments that it can use. um to get what it wants uh either through coercive purposes or by fighting the actual war.
And one is air power, two is ground power or land power, uh and three is naval power. Those are the sort of three
instruments that a state has. And we started the war on February 28th and
waged it before the ceasefire largely with air power. Uh we struck
Iran from the air and uh we struck them with naval aircraft but we didn't have a
blockade on at that point in time. It was all about air power and that air
power campaign Glenn failed. Uh and that's why you moved to a ceasefire and that's why we can say today uh that up
to this point Iran has won the war. the air power campaign failed. And by the way, everybody knew, or let me put it differently, everybody should have known
beforehand that air power alone was not going to defeat Iran. The historical record is clear here. So that's air
power. Then there's ground power. And here we're talking about using ground forces for invading for the purpose of
invading Iran. This is not a serious option. Uh first of all, we don't have many combat troops at all in the region.
Uh you know, there's talk about 50,000 American troops in the region. Only a small slice of them are combat troops.
And the idea that even if all of them were combat troops, you could invade Iran and do something uh to end this war
is not a serious argument. We don't have the combat forces there to launch a ground invasion. Furthermore, President
Trump is allergic to boots on the ground. Furthermore, the American people are not willing to tolerate the kind of
pain that would be required if you're going to launch a fullscale invasion of Iran. Just think about how deeply
concerned we were about we were about the life of that pilot who was shot down, right? The idea that he might be
killed was a horrible thought. Uh our tolerance for pain over the Iran war is
not very high. The idea that you're going to launch a massive ground offensive into Iran, uh suffer lots of
casualties, have soldiers coming back in body bags. That's just not possible.
It's just not going to happen. And it seems to me that President Trump,
although he occasionally hints at maybe a tiny ground force incursion,
the ground force option is just not a serious option. So what I'm telling you is up to now the air power option was
tried and failed. We have no serious ground power option or land force option. And unsurprisingly,
what have we turned to? We've turned to the naval option. and we have a blockade uh on the straight. And furthermore,
we're running around the world hunting down uh ships carrying Iranian oil uh
way out in uh East Asia or Southwest Asia. And the question you have to ask
yourself is whether or not you think this blockade is going to bring the Iranians to their knees. Uh, and I would
say to you, first of all, Glenn, if the blockade is such a warinning weapon or is an effective war-winning weapon, why
didn't we turn to it earlier? Why are we only turning to it now? And the answer is it's not a war-winning weapon. Uh,
first of all, I don't think the US Navy can sustain a blockade for a long period of time. Uh, we have a limited number of
ships. The wear and tear on our ships is enormous.
Um, I think a lot of ships, based on what I read, are getting through the blockade.
uh we run the risk uh at some point that the Chinese will escort ships into the
15 minutesstraight of Hormuz which will put us in a very difficult position cuz then we'll have to face the fact that we might have
to attack Chinese ships if we want to prevent those Iranian cargo ships or oil tankers from going
into the Gulf. I mean there's all sorts of trouble that one can imagine uh with this blockade. And I think very
importantly what you saw today is that the Iranians have captured uh two uh ships in the uh Persian Gulf.
They've seized two ships in retaliation for the two ships that we have seized. So they're playing tit for tat.
Moreover, the Iranians have made it manifestly clear that if you want to come back to the bargaining table, uh you have to put an end to the blockade.
So, at some point, Trump is going to have to end the blockade just to go back to the bargaining table. Uh he can't dillydally forever and ever. We have to
get negotiations going here. Uh and that means he's going to have to take the blockade off at some point. But my
previous point is the blockade's not going to be that effective. Is it going to inflict some pain on the Iranians?
Yeah. But the Iranians have demonstrated that they have a high tolerance for pain, a much higher tolerance for pain
than we do. So the naval option is not a war option. We have no warinning option.
uh you know, President Trump talks about uh sort of going back to air power and a lot of people say we're going to go in
and bomb this and bomb that. Uh that's not going to work either. If it was going to work, he would have done it. We
tried bombing. It didn't work. Uh what's the new formula that's going to allow us to succeed? Oh, we're going to go in and
destroy all of their energy infrastructure and uh basically make uh Iran unlivable. That's not going to
work. Everybody knows that because the Iranians can retaliate. So, we're out of options. And what he has to do here is
he has to get a ceasefire in place ASAP and then they have to start negotiating
and he has to come up with a clever set of uh proposals that he can work on with
the Iranians so that we can work out some sort of deal uh and shut this down as much as possible uh and rescue the
international economy before it goes off a cliff.
Well, there's a tit for a tat. So, this has been one of the interesting uh uh well ways this war has developed. That
is whatever the US does, it appears that the Iranians can mirror it and go up that escalation ladder with the
Americans. But that's why I'm wondering if this is what the US will do. What do you expect on the Iranian side? Because there doesn't seems to be a diplomatic
path here. at least they seem to be too far apart at the moment. Uh the US again it will it might do this heavy air
campaign and then complement it with the sea blockade.
Some people like Keith Kellogg are you know arguing for a land campaign as well that is to seize islands and these kind
of things. But what do you see Iran possibly doing? I know the IR GC has suggested they that they could do things
like cut undersea internet cables or you know they could shut down the Red Sea.
Indeed, Yemen has more or less you know said that they're prepared to enter the war now. But uh what is the secret
weapon you think of Iran? Um if the US let's say US pursues this strategy of
just bombing um Iran inflicting as much pain as possible and then yeah either in
perpetuity or just until they decide to leave. What what do you expect to see from the Iranians?
Well, I if you're describing a situation where the United States goes back to a massive bombing campaign where they're attacking energy, infrastructure,
bridges, and doing enormous amounts of damage inside Iran, including killing uh
many, many thousands of civilians. Uh I think what Iran will do is that it will
uh shut down the Persian Gulf completely. It will shut down the Red Sea and it will attack uh energy
infrastructure uh and desalination plants all across the Gulf. It will do everything it can
to wreck the Gulf. Uh it's what I call the God of Damaron response. uh we're going to bring everybody down with us,
right? The idea that you're just going to inflict punishment on Iran and get away with it and everybody else is going to be able to stand idly by uh while our
country is destroyed is not in the cards. Uh we are going to take others down with us. We will take every state
in the Gulf down with us and we will wreck the world economy.
uh and uh we will do that by shutting down the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf and this will have disastrous consequences over the long term and
surely everybody understands that. That would be the threat that I would make I if I were playing their hand. And I believe it is a very formidable threat.
And I believe the people in the Trump administration and people all around the world understand this is what is likely
to happen if the United States turns the dogs loose and really goes uh after Iran's infrastructure and its population
in a major way. Uh, and that's why I think it's not going to happen. Uh, this is why I say if you go up the escalation
ladder, uh, the Iranians hold all the cards. You can do enormous damage to Iran, but the fact is they can do even
greater damage to the world economy and to states in the region.
But I was wondering though sometimes you get some commentary that uh you know that well yes that this could melt down
the global economy but do you think there's anyone that there would be some in the administration who would think you know so what because the US isn't
dependent on the straight or most the US doesn't have to be reliant on uh energy from the Middle East is it some I guess
based on history of you know World War II that you the whole world burned down But the US remained now it was the last one standing. Do you think there's
anyone who would u you know maybe not welcome such a scenario but uh who would be willing essentially to sacrifice the
Gulf States if it meant weakening or destroying Iran and weakening for example China significantly or do you think that's u over the top?
No, I think that Israel and its supporters will be inclined to adopt the position you just described.
Uh again, it's very important to understand that from Israel's point of view, Iran is an existential threat. And
they thought that when we went to war against Iran on February 28th, that the end result would be that Iran would
suffer a staggering defeat. Uh we would win. we meaning the United States and Israel and the exact opposite is
happening. And what we're talking about here, Glenn, is working out some sort of agreement that reflects the fact that
Iran won. We may get certain concessions from the Iranians, but they won the war and they'll do very well in these
negotiations. That's just the way it works. Uh the winners on the battlefield are the winners at the negotiating
table. Common sense tells you that, but the Israelis definitely don't want that.
Uh so they're going to push very hard for us to start the war up again. and uh
the Israelis and their supporters in the United States will be inclined, not all will buy this argument, but they'll be inclined to make the argument that uh we
can withstand uh the response that uh Iran comes up with uh after we turn the dogs loose.
And I think that at that point I think President Trump will uh side with uh
common sense and he will go to great lengths to tell the Israelis that they just have to accept the fact that we lost and that we're going to work out a
deal with Iran because President Trump uh has a deep-seated interest in avoiding an economic catastrophe. I mean
there are all sorts of people who are uh students of international economics who
say that you know if this one spins out of control militarily and uh and economically that you could end up in a
situation analogous to what you had in the 1930s. Uh you could have a great depression. And there are some people who argue and these are not foolish
people. These are smart people who argue you could have a economic depression worse than you had in the 1930s. Is that
for sure? Of course not. Because we don't know exactly where this train is headed. We live in an uncertain world.
And how it all plays out is very hard to say. But it just seems pretty common sensical that if you shut down the Gulf
completely, you shut down the Red Sea and you wreck all of those GCC countries
that the economic consequences worldwide would be just enormous. Uh it's not only gas and oil, it's the fertilizers that
come out of the region, out of the Middle East, out of the Gulf, out of the Red Sea. It's the aluminum. Uh it's the
helium. Um it's just hard to imagine us uh doing anything to create a situation
like that. And it would just seem to me that we will go to great lengths to avoid that. But again, I think there'll be pressure from Israel and from its uh
supporters in the United States uh to really go after Iran and to not reach any sort of any agreement it gives them um concessions, major concessions.
Well, I think one of the reasons why we got locked into this wars and not able to pull out even now that the war has
been lost is there's or even predict the consequences that will come. you mentioned the um yeah global depression
26 minutesuh you know we have the possibility of a famine is uh because in human nature there's always the assumption that the present era is permanent you know it's
only been 35 years since the Soviet Union collapsed uh it's um it's yeah the the current era it's the conditions of
it it hasn't been here for very long and the assumption that it would stay like this forever is is quite extraordinary.
So you often get the impression that politicians aren't ready to make the necessary adjustments because they don't appreciate or recognize the severity of
the situation. Uh but but on that though, how how willing do you think how long do you think how far do you think
Trump is prepared to go to put an end to this thing? Because let's say he goes in just uh takes what remains of uh uh
American missiles and just uh carpet bomb what they can of Iran, but they can't achieve what they want.
Is it just pulling back then and going home? I mean, do you think it's possible for the US to leave the Middle East without having the straight of her moose
open? Because this seems so critical. uh if the Iranians can hold us straight over most we already seen more or less
what they can do to dismantle the US presence in the Middle East. They can you know collect their uh you said the toll but that would be reparations as
well. They would be able to I think the UAE already said that they might start to sell some of their oil in Chinese one
or they they're open to it. uh there could be efforts to pressure these countries to scale back the presence of these US military bases in the region.
Uh something that I'm sure some of them are already discussing if that invites conflict instead of bringing security.
So it seems like a massive cause for the US to leave without the straight of being open. But again if if it can't be
achieved what do you do? Do you think it's possible for the US just to leave?
I know Joe Kent advocated for this but is it possible?
Well, there's a difference between the uh United States leaving with the
straight uh closed or open versus uh the United States leaving with
Iran in control and with a toll booth uh on the road uh or in the straight. Uh I
I think that Iran is going to end up controlling the straight and it's going
to have a toll booth in the straight. Uh I think it's linked to the business in good part of reparations and sanctions.
Uh, I think that it's hard to imagine the United States and Israel, certainly Israel, but the United States even
paying reparations to Iran for all the damage it's done. Uh and in terms of sanctions relief, uh it's going to be
almost impossible to get the American sanctions uh off of Iran because that would have to go through Congress and
Congress is anti-Iran in the extreme. uh they may get the international sanctions off, but given the problem that we're
going to face with sanctions relief for the Iranians and given that we're not going to pay meaningful reparations,
they're going to want to keep the toll booth in place for a long, long time.
And furthermore, they're going to want to control the strait just because it provides them with huge amounts of course of leverage. uh anytime the
United States or uh Israel in the future start to play tough or threaten to play
tough with Iran, I think the Iranians will just remind uh the United States and Israel that they control the strait
and uh they will shut things down once again. That's a powerful deterrent. So,
I think no matter what, Iran's going to end up with control of the straight uh in a very obvious way, and they're going to end up with a toll booth in the
middle of that straight. Uh and it may that it may be that uh boats or ships uh
traversing that straight or they're going through that toll booth, we'll have to pay you. Who knows on that count? But uh so I think that that's
that's a given. But the discussion that or the question that you raise gets at
the fact that we're at a very plastic moment here. And what I mean by that is
that there just so many different issues on the table and how they're all resolved, how they all fit together is
just very hard to say. Uh if you ask me sort of where is this train headed? uh you know what does this all mean for the
US military presence in the Gulf and that was one of the questions that you were pushing forward. I don't have a
clear answer. Uh I'd be curious to know what you think, but do you think we're going to go back to the naval base at
Bahrain? Uh do you think we're going to go back to any of those bases in the Middle East that have been either destroyed or badly damaged? Do you think
that the Gulf states uh that hosted those bases are going to want us back?
Uh and what about the negotiations? How do the bases play in the negotiations?
Uh do we make concessions on the bases so that we can get a better deal on the nuclear enrichment issue? In other
words, will the Iranians be more willing to accommodate us on nuclear enrichment
uh if we are willing to put an end to the bases in the region? Uh I'm not saying that will happen for one second,
but this all remains to be determined. I mean, this is what the negotiations will
hopefully resolve. And if they don't resolve these issues, this conflict will just go on and on forever. Uh and that
will not be a good thing obviously. But uh you what I'm saying here Glenn is you raise a great set of questions but what the answers are are just not clear here.
I think a lot of the conflicts we have today be it with the Russia, Iran,
China, they all many of them have some of the same origin that is the wider transition of the world order that is
who are shifting a distribution of power from unipolar to a multipolar. Now in the heedgemonic system I think the
hedgemon will have an interest in uh building alliances that is um that's a good way of maintaining a hedgemony that
is like in Europe divide the continent into dependent thus loyal allies and the weakened adversaries. You kind of see
the same dynamic in the Middle East when the Chinese try to negotiate some more well improved relations between the
Saudis and Iranians. this essentially could become a you know if peace breaks out then what's gonna happen then the Saudis will be less uh you know loyal or
obedient and the Iranians won't be contained so one does need an alliance system to preserve a hegemonic position and I think as the world becomes
multipolar many of these states probably have an interest to have a more independent political position but then you need to to diversify your ties that
is not to tie yourself too much down with one actor so I from Saudi Arabia, Turkey across the region. Many countries now looking to
diversify and decouple a little bit from this alliance systems and especially if you have a declining hedgemon. Not saying that the US is, you know,
finished. I think this people ask me how I compare it to, you know, Britain in 1956. But I think by no means the US
will remain a massive power. is it's uh is but but relative decline I think is important because if a power is in
relative decline um the alliance system instead of being a form of a well
monopolizing of security everyone wanted to tie the security to the US in the '90s but if it's a declining hedgemon and it might use the frontline states to
weaken its opponents uh you know you see this in the Gulf states they have to question whether or not this is a good position still to be I mean it's not the
1990s. I know they're talking about this in East Asia, in South Korea, cuz whenever one enters an alliance, yes,
one gets security, but one can also provoke a response. And at the moment,
the security, the gain, it seems to be reducing while provoking, for example,
China isn't worth it. And uh at some point, I think the Europeans will talk about this as well. But I think this is a overall shift I think in the
international distribution of power. So I think at the end of the day the US will have less interest in the Middle East simply because it has better
priorities and the Middle Eastern countries will have to diversify and you know the Saudis will have to hedge a
bit. Um and um yes I think there will be no going back to the way things were. I mean this is historical times. You can't
have a country for example like China you know with this spectacular rise and and the world order will remain the same. There has to be massive changes.
And I think that's what we're undergoing. Some of them will be, you know, born through blood and fire essentially instead of uh, you know,
through diplomacy. But, um, no, I I don't think we're going back to where we were. Yeah. No question about that. Let me just tell you how I sort of think
about the world uh at a at a macro level uh to try to make sense of it. And I'm
not arguing that this is an approved solution, but it's just my sort of simple framework for thinking about how the world uh looks today. Uh, of course,
you know, up until about 2017, certainly through all of the 1990s and the first decade and a half or so of the 21st century, we lived in a unipolar world.
And in that unipolar world, the United States was by definition the only great power.
uh that world went away in my opinion in about 2017 and we now live in a multi-olar world
and what's very important to understand about that multipolar world is that for the United States the most important
region in the world is East Asia because China is a peer competitor in the sense
that China is a rising great power that threatens to even be more powerful than the United States. I'm not saying that
will happen, but China is a formidable adversary for the United States. So you now have this multipolar world where uh
East Asia is of paramount importance for the United States and the United States still cares about two other areas of the
world. One is Europe and then the third is the Persian Gulf. uh so that's sort
of the macro uh view I have uh at the highest level but then if you look at
the Ukraine Russia war and you look at the Iran war
what you see is that these two conflicts almost are guaranteed to never go away
and to have to create a poison poisonous uh security environment in both Europe
and in the Gulf. And why am I saying that? It's very important to understand,
I think, that from Russia's point of view, the situation in Ukraine is an existential threat. From Ukraine's point
of view, Russia is an existential threat. I fully understand why both actors in that conflict, Ukraine and
Russia, view the other as an existential threat. And Europe has piggybacked with the Ukrainians to the point where the
Europeans think Russia is an existential threat and the Russians think the Europeans and the Ukrainians together are an existential threat. And when you
have two sides that both think the other side is an existential threat, how do you shut that down in any meaningful
way? So I think you're going to have huge problems in Europe moving forward
mainly based on the Russia Ukraine conflict.
Turning to the Gulf, as I said to you before, the Israelis view the Iranians as an existential threat.
Uh, and Israel's supporters in the United States view Iran as an existential threat. And Iran views the
United States and certainly Israel as an existential threat. But let's just focus on Israel and Iran. Those two view each
other as an existential threat. How are we ever going to get a meaningful ceasefire between
Israel and Iran? Especially when Iran supports Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis and has no intention of giving
up that support. And the Israelis view Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as not as dangerous as Iran, but almost as
dangerous as Iran and joined at the hip with Iran. So what you're going to see moving forward, even if we get some sort
of agreement between the United States and Iran, is a permanent state of hostility between Israel and Iran uh in
the uh Persian Gulf or in the Middle East. And then back to Europe, you're going to see endless trouble moving
forward. a poisonous relationship. You and I have talked about this before between the Russians on one side and the Ukrainians and the Europeans on the
other side. So again, just to go back to where I started, you have these three great powers in the system now, right?
Who compete with each other in all sorts of different ways. And with regard to the US China conflict from an American
point of view, China is the principal threat. East Asia is the number one area of the world. But if you look at the other two areas of the world, Europe and
the Middle East, you have this very dangerous situation that doesn't seem to
look like it's going to go away in both of those areas. And my final point would be to you,
Glenn, you can tell all sorts of stories about how you hook the Chinese up to what's going on in the Gulf. It's very
easy to do. Uh and the Russians of course are already involved in Europe.
They're one of the principal participants in the war in Ukraine. And the Russians of course are involved in the Gulf. They're helping the Iranians.
Both the Russians and the Chinese are helping the Iranians. And the Chinese obviously because they fear an American
containment strategy in East Asia. The Chinese have a vested interest in seeing the Ukraine war go on
and seeing the Americans pinned down in Europe. And in a certain way, they even have a vested interest in seeing the
United States remain militarily in the Persian Gulf because that means they won't be able to go to East Asia to
contain China. So what I think you see with this rather simple framework that
I'm putting on the table is that we live in a very dangerous world and there's not much prospect that I can see. I hope
I'm wrong but there's not much prospect of creating uh a more peaceful world moving forward.
No, I'm not sure how the new yeah equilibrium will be established. But uh but but I'm curious though what
the US goals then will be towards Europe because you know if you have a the world becoming multipolar, the US can't be everywhere. It has to make priorities.
So the US more or less prioritizes the western hemisphere and East Asia where you said its peer competitors. Well then the US has to get out of the Middle East
and Europe. Um again this is why the Iran war does make much sense in the wider strategy and by Europe it seems
even more important to get out of because they consume a lot of resources but uh more importantly is perhaps by
having too heavy American footprint in Europe they're pushing the Russians closer to to China. So when Trump said,
"I want to put an end to this war," you know, in , which was never, you know, realistic, but at least he seemed to reflect that he recognized how the
distribution of power was shifting. But that being said, I kind of assume that he wanted to put an end to that war. But
now we see this kind of this new statements. I I I did send you a link earlier on with the under secretary of
war for policy. Elbridge Colby was uh you're making some remarks. He didn't sound like he wanted to put an end to
the war. On the contrary, he called for the Europeans to essentially step up to the plate. He sounded not to end the war, but to outsource the war to the
Europeans. So, while the Europeans would like to pull the Americans into the well deeper into the war, uh it seems the Americans want to outsource it to the
Europeans. But do you read it the same way or or do the US want to put an end to it or just make it a if because if it's a European war then they can
continue to contain the Russians and uh you know it's the Europeans problems and the Russians for you know they they signal they're willing to improve
bilateral ties with the Americans even though the US is still involved in in Ukraine in terms of intelligence and
sending weapons. But do you do you see a willingness to end the war? Is it like perpetual war, forever war, which is uh
uh possibly a strategy just to drain the Russians and uh yeah, make sure that the Europeans do it on their own.
Well, you should put that u uh speech that uh Elbridge KBY gave in Europe uh
up on your website so that people can access it. Uh Glenn sent it to me. I'm talking to the audience here. Glenn sent
it to me earlier today and I read it very carefully and of course Elbridge Colby is a very important figure in the
Pentagon and uh his statement uh that Glenn sent me uh on April 15th is I
think enormously important and my interpretation of it Glenn is it
said nothing about solving the war or shutting down the war in Ukraine. Uh
this was all about what I would call buck passing. Uh shifting um the responsibility for security in Europe at
the conventional level uh almost completely over to the Europeans and shifting responsibility
for supporting Ukraine in the Ukraine Russia war almost completely over to uh the Europeans.
Uh, and this was a case of moving almost completely away from the Biden approach to dealing with Ukraine where we were
fully involved in the process and committed uh to fight till the end. And I think it's very clear that what's
going on here is that the United States is deeply
uh committed in Iran and in the Iran war and we are using up uh significant
amounts of our weapons inventory in uh the Middle East in this Iran war and
that is weakening our position visav the Chinese. If you look at the numbers of THAAD missiles and Patriot missiles and
smart bombs and tomahawks that we've expended uh in Iran, and by the way,
Glenn, just to get off the subject that we're talking about for one second, one of the reasons that President Trump does
not want to start the uh bombing campaign again and start the war up uh
because it would involve Iran retaliating against Israel and Gulf states is that he would have to use up more of the American inventory of
weapons. They don't want to use any more weapons than they have to in a future conflict in the war against Iran. Right?
So we we have very powerful incentives not to start the war up again against Iran because we have so depleted our
inventory of weapons. And this has huge consequences for East Asia where we're supposed to be uh in the process of
containing China, the principal threat from the United uh to the United States.
Right? So what Elbridge KBY is saying very clearly to the Europeans is we
can't provide the weapons anymore for you to give to the Ukrainians.
You Europeans have to develop the necessary weapons and you have to do it quickly for
Ukraine. We can't do it because we have other responsibilities.
So this is I think the uh Colby speech a clear statement of the Americans
divorcing themselves from Europe at the military level. It's basically saying to the Europeans, you deal with the Ukraine
war. They're not saying you shut down the Ukraine war. In fact, I think the document reads like, "We expect the war
to go on and on." And that's hardly surprising. We failed to shut the war down. They're not going to shut the war down. In fact, they have no interest in
shutting the war down. The Europeans want this war to go on forever and ever.
And the end result is that Ukraine is going to have to be supplied with lots of weapons. And the question is, where are they going to get those weapons? And
up to now, it's been pretty much a case with the Europeans, buy the weapons from the United States and then give them to the Ukrainians. And what KBY is saying
is the cupboard's bare. There are no American weapons we can give you. We're running through weapons in the Gulf at
an incredibly rapid pace. And that's having huge consequences for East Asia which is strategically the most important area of the world. So in a
very important way uh what Colby is doing is divorcing the United States
from Europe especially at the conventional level. Uh that's the way I read it. Do you disagree with that? No.
I think they're Yeah. No, they're handing it over or or cutting it cutting their ties further. I think this also uh
could be a consequence of the Iran war as well. The fact that Trump has put a lot of rhetorical efforts to blame the
whole thing on the Europeans, it that could provide a a a reason or at least to get mobilizing support from
decoupling the US a bit more from the from from the Europeans. Uh but that also puts the Europeans in a well puts
us on a much closer to war I think here in Europe because with the lack of American weapons uh the situation is
going more and more in Russia's favor and the Europeans will have to escalate in a big way which you see all these drones being made and sent and uh the
very openness about our participation in this war and at the same time uh the reports now of uh the Baltic states
andor Finland allowing their terri be used to be used to strike Russia at some point. You know, the escalation will put more pressure on the Kremlin to respond
and there is a growing pressure and all of this is happening at the same time that the Americans are divorcing themselves. So now the Russians would
have less constraints to retaliate. I mean why would they fear striking some German logistics center if if America's
not standing behind? Is it same as the Baltic states? The reason they be behaving this way is you had always, you know, big bad Uncle Sam standing behind
you. If if Uncle Sam's not there anymore, um, you know, and instead of toning it down, they have to escalate.
Uh, I think we're looking at a recipe for war. But, uh,
yeah, I mean, this this gets to this whole point we were making before about what a plastic moment this is. Um, I
mean, just listening to you talk, what about the American security umbrella,
the American nuclear umbrella over Europe, uh, especially over Eastern Europe? Uh, if something happens in one
of the Baltic states, uh, what are we going to do? We, meaning the Americans,
uh, it's really hard to imagine the United States getting into a fight uh,
with the Russians in one of the Baltic states at this point in time. Uh so I think the Russians are kind of uh
flexing their muscles these days visav the Baltic states because they understand that. The other thing is Glenn, I wonder what's going to happen
when Ukraine finally loses this war. I mean it's hard to say what the final arrangement is going to look like, but
at some point the shooting is going to stop. number one. Uh and number two, the Russians are going to end up controlling
a huge slice of Ukrainian territory. Uh which they've already enexed. I mean,
they've enexed for Oblas and Crimea. Uh and this is going to be seen as a
devastating defeat for NATO, right? NATO lost and President Trump will blame the Europeans.
And if you think about KBY's speech,
Colby speech is putting President Trump in a position where it will be easy to blame the Europeans because the
Ukrainians have lost not lost now. We're divorcing ourselves and at some point the Ukrainians are going to lose and
when they lose, Trump will be able to say, "We shifted the burden almost completely onto the shoulders of the
Europeans. we were doing well or the Ukrainians were doing well up until that happened and then Ukraine fell apart and
of course it's because of those pathetic Europeans who wouldn't help us uh in the Gulf who wouldn't help open the straight
of Hormuz or who wouldn't unilaterally open the straight of Hormuz. Of course,
this is all nonsense, but this is the rhetoric that he'll use, and this will just further tear at the seams of the
alliance. It'll just make a bad situation worse. Uh so I I think what you're going to get in Europe, and I'd
be curious to know what you think about this, I think you're going to get u a situation where the United States is
much less committed to Europe and to NATO. And at the same time, the relations between the Russians on one
side and the Ukrainians and the Europeans on the other side are going to be even worse in the future than they are now.
No, I I agree. I think it was also very predictable. Indeed, on on this podcast, I interviewed the the German
general, General Haral Kuyat. He was the head of the well entire German army and he also had the highest military
position within NATO. uh forgot what it's called. Yeah. And anyways, my my my my point is three years ago he was m he
he made the point that uh you know he was speaking very openly about what was actually happening unlike the rest of his countrymen. was making the point that yes, the US and the British
sabotaged the Istanbul agreement, all of this, but he also made the point again 3 years ago that we're losing this war as you and I always were saying back in
those days. Uh and but the consequence is at some point the US when it's being lost, they will, you know, have the common sense to pull away and at this
point we that is the Germans will stand to face a very angry Russian or Russia all by ourselves. And I thought that was
interesting. That was one of the reasons I wanted to talk to him as well. And uh I I think that's where we are now. The the war is being lost. The US is handing
it over to the Europeans. And now we're going to face a very angry Russia. And instead of seeking to make a peace,
we're making it much worse because many of the European leaders seemingly genuinely believe that Russia is an existential threat. So they don't have
any political imagination for peace. So it's only escalation. And um but I think on the wider I think there there's also
mutual divorce because you mentioned before the missiles being depleted. Once missiles or weapons are being depleted uh people lose trust in alliances that
is you know the South Koreans are asking you know why did the Americans pull out their TH and the Patriots. In Europe they're saying oh all these missiles we're supposed to get to fight the
Russians being delayed or diverted. Even in the Gulf States, they're saying, "Oh,
why are the the air defenses the, you know, Israel's being prioritized." So,
you're seeing this side distancing themselves. And on the other side, you see the Americans who are essentially blaming some of the partners. They're,
you know, they're not a force amplifier anymore. They're drained on US resources. They're not going to be able to look after their own backyard or go
contain China. And and um yeah, all all of the failings are their their faults.
I mean Europeans there the ones to blame in you for Ukraine for Iran. So I I
think you see a a mutual split and uh again I don't know what would follow though.
Just one other dimension to this Glenn.
Uh I I like to say that when you think about the poisonous relationship that's going to exist between Russia on one
side and Europe and Ukraine on the other side that there are six other potential flash points uh that are loosely
associated with Ukraine. And of course the Ukraine war could start up again. Uh it you know we'll get some sort of
frozen conflict but that could start up again. But then there are the sort of other potential flash points that I
focus on or I have focused on. One is the Arctic, two is the Baltic Sea, three is Bellarus, four is Kinenrad,
uh five is Muldova and six is the Black Sea. But you know, if you think about
it, we're talking about not the Baltic or Kenrad. We're talking about the Baltic states themselves and potential
trouble in the Baltic states. Uh so you could add that as a seventh category.
But all of this just goes to show that the potential for really big trouble in Europe moving forward uh is really
enormous. And I would argue that you and I like to say that there's no real Russian threat there. Uh and that the Germans and the Europeans in general,
especially the West Europeans, are hyping the threat. This is, you know, classic threat inflation.
But if the Russians were to go into one of the Baltic states uh with military force
uh or into Kinenrad, there was a fight over Keningrad or something in the Baltic Sea. Uh this would really give
the Europeans cause to think uh that the Russians are coming. This is the second coming uh of the Soviet Union and that would just make a bad situation worse.
Anyway, all of this is just to say you can tell all sorts of stories about how a conflict down the road just takes the
present situation which is very bad and makes it even worse.
Yeah. Well, if someone would have asked me a few years ago or only last year if a Russian attack on Estonia is likely or
the Baltic states, I would say, you know, it's crazy talk. But there is the security dilemma now. I'm not so sure anymore because after all that Estonia
for example been doing uh you know having this geographical position there as well on the Baltic coastline I think
it's quite uh it's become increasingly likely I think that the Russians will do something in retaliation. I it's
probably going to be more something something where they can have some plausible deniability but overall I I think we're moving in that direction.
But but that goes back to the whole idea what what is the security because the Europeans are recognizing that things are all these flash points you're
talking about. But their their res well there's assumption the cause of this conflict is well the Russians wanting to
restore empire. So okay we can have security but then we have to defeat the Russians. I think it's just the wrong we which would trigger a security dilemma.
We need to to bring it down. I think this is the problem. Um anyways I think we run out of time. Do you have any final thoughts before we wrap up?
I just make one final point. Uh it's kind of a big point, but it's just worth throwing out on the table when we're while we're talking about the big
picture here. And just to segue away from Europe back to the Middle East, uh if you look at the Israel Iran conflict,
uh in recent times I've focused on trying to think about how you could settle that conflict. Uh, and I focus
mainly on Iran and Israel. But what I've come to realize over the past week or so is that that's not the right way to
think about it because it's not just Iran and Israel that you have to deal with if you want to come up with a settlement. It's also Hezbollah and
Hamas. I think the Houthis are much less of a problem, but Hamas and Hezbollah
are inextricably uh linked with Iran. And of course for Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas, especially Hamas matter enormously.
So if you're going to work out some sort of modus vivendi between Israel and Iran,
you have to include Hezbollah and Hamas in the equation. And how do you do that?
Uh I I don't know. So it it just goes to show that these conflicts that we're
talking about, you know, whether you're talking about the Russians and the Ukrainians in Europe or whether you're talking about the Israelis and the
Iranians in the Middle East are multi-dimensional,
right? It's not just those two players who matter. They have all sorts of interests and they're linked to all
sorts of other flash points in ways that make it very difficult uh to think about
how you shut down the conflict either in Europe or in the Middle East.
I agree and uh yeah, thanks for bringing back to the original point because now the Middle East because I think this can
be can spin out of control. uh you know often people assume that the the alliances are also written in stone but a lot of the countries which have been
hostile to Iran be it uh Saudi Arabia and maybe lesser extent Turkey you know if Iran would weaken
they you know their position would change as well the Saudis aren't that comfortable with Israel's territorial
ambitions that Turkey is also very aware the hostility of Israel towards Turkey so if you lose your Iranian boogeyman and
then suddenly you're next on the chopping block perhaps. So there's a you know you don't necessarily want to defeat your enemy. So I think that
yeah instead of having this zero something thinking there might be countries in the region who wants to find a new equilibrium something that puts a check on the Iranians but also on
the Israelis. So essentially move away from this hegemonic vision where of a you know US global primacy or Israeli
regional primacy. I think this is uh um yeah I think the the alliances can switch more that the stability we see in
the alliance systems uh throughout the cold war uh probably is a thing of the past but uh again anything can happen
now it is a plastic moment as we were saying before and it it it is hard to predict
exactly where this train is headed uh but you can what's so depressing Glenn is that we can tell just you know one
horror story after another. Uh I mean hopefully you know cooler heads will prevail and we won't have any really uh
disastrous conflicts down the road but uh it's going to take a lot of luck and a lot of smart policym and a lot of
diplomacy to avoid trouble moving forward.
Well, I'm not looking towards our political leadership at least with great confidence but maybe new people will come in. Uh, anyways, John, thank you so
much for taking the time. I know we have a big day there in Chicago, so I appreciate it. My pleasure, Glenn, as always.

[admin]

Robert Pape: “Trump Has DOOMED Us!” Iran Will DESTROY Presidency
Breaking Points
Apr 22, 2026 Breaking Points

Ryan and Emily are joiend by Robert Pape to discuss the latest on Iran.



Transcript

We're happy to be joined once again by friend of the show, Professor Robert Pape, the University of Chicago and of course the escalation trap Substack.
Make sure to subscribe to that if you haven't yet. Professor Pape, thank you so much for joining us once again.
Yeah, thanks for having me. Uh, I really enjoy these discussions. You guys are just the best. So, thank you so much for having me. Well, we appreciate you for being here.
Yeah, keep keep the compliments flowing and we'll we'll stay happy. It'll be part of the escalation promise.
Yes.
In fact, I've been noticing and I don't tell tell me if you've noticed this at all. It feels like Iran Iranian officials have actually been following
some of your analysis particularly the the argument that they that they're becoming a major power. Like I've seen them sort of that may that may be right.
And so just just so listeners know, so Russian television wants me on and has for a long time. Uh Iranian uh media,
various kinds, wants me on. I just won't do that uh here. So uh I'm laying out what to expect for the world here. Um
and I'm not trying to, you know, uh certainly not help the bad guys here or something like that. just not you're not
seeing somebody who's in any way other than uh an American uh supporter here.
Just so everybody knows my my ideal world is where America remains number one. We're the strongest, richest
country in the world. We want everybody to come here because we're the best place on the planet to be. And I think
we need to get back to being the best place on the planet to be uh here. But we're not going to get there if we don't understand the world that's coming at us.
Well, let's just start by getting your reaction to the whirlwind of events yesterday where the deadline was looming
where JD Vance, Jared Kushner, Steve Wickoff were supposed to go to Islamabad and everybody was waiting trying to figure out if the plane had taken off.
They ended up of course not going and Trump extended the deadline. And we woke up this news to this morning to news that uh there were ships fired on in the straight of Hormuz. So, Professor Pap,
wild . What do you make of uh Yes, but fully in line, if you're following the Substack posts here, this is just in line with the expectations I've been laying out on both sides.
though. Um, and what you are seeing number one is, and as I've been saying, you know, from my early post about how,
uh, Trump has the illusion of control.
Trump's just lost control. So, so the bottom line is, um, we America's not winning. Trump is not in control.
And what you are seeing is, um, a rising trajectory for Iran. It is, it's just growing, you know, sort of bit by bit.
It's not exactly linear. There's some pauses, but it is growing just as I've been saying. And Iran has cards to
play. They are more in control as each day passes. And since the first hour of the bombing, America has been less in control and has less cards to play. Um and that's actually playing itself out.

Now, in detail, let me just shift over to the details here, because I did post these longer articles about why is the ceasefire breaking down? Well, the ceasefire is breaking down not because this is a case of misunderstanding, where you need to have negotiators get to the table, and talk to each other face to face to clarify things. No, that's not what's occurring here. What's occurring is a zero sum problem. We have two zero sum problems, and that's what's causing the negotiations to break down. You see, we have two issues, the nuclear enrichment, and Iran's control of the strait of Hormuz. And these are classic zero issues. Iran cannot both control and not control the straight of Hormuz. There's no middle ground here. Iran cannot both have enriched uranium to make a bomb and not have enriched uranium to make a bomb. So there's no real way to cut this pie evenly, you know, 50-50, 60-40. That's not what's occurring. One side has to give up essentially. And what you're seeing is both sides, rather than give up, they prefer to escalate.

Now, Donald Trump is also trying to find a third fork in the road. So, I've been arguing this for some time, and as I just explained more in detail, we're at a fork in the road. Either we pull back here from escalation, and Iran becomes the fourth center of world power, or we go forward with escalation. Well, Donald Trump is trying so hard to get a third way, which is, "Can't you just give me the fig leaf of a cover, Iran, so that I can declare victory, and then I'll maybe even give you the strait of Hormuz, or something here under the table? Just kind of let me have my victory?" No they're not doing that, folks. They're not doing that.

And there's, I think, a very simple reason they're not doing that, which is they want to torpedo Donald Trump's presidency. I think this has got the classic earmarks of wanting Donald Trump to become the lamest of lame ducks. Now, he's hurt right now. He's a wounded animal when it comes to his presidency. That's why he's squirming, trying to get out of this thing. But he's not unrecoverably wounded.

So, I think what you're seeing on the part of Iran is they're going to want to string this out. Now, I don't know exactly how far they can string it out, but I can tell you they're going to want to string it out at least to November. Now, that's horrible for the economy. Think about that. I'm about to do a new substack post. I did one on the economy, and I'm about to do a new one projecting out even further. Because what's happening is everybody wants this to be over. Well, that's because they are not Iran! Okay. And what Iran wants is to become that emerging power. Okay. So how do you do that? You keep the strait of hormuz, and you make sure everybody knows you're in control, which is what they did this morning with demonstration. Number two, in about a year, you want nuclear weapons. And number three is you want to go down in history as the country that torpedoed Trump's presidency when the Democrats couldn't.

Just think about that on their legacy. You see, this would now establish them in this powerful way. And if that happens, if they torpedo Donald Trump's presidency, oh my goodness, the kowtowing that's going to come to them from the UAE, because the governments in the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, they're going to be fearful that if they can torpedo Trump's presidency, what are they going to do to them? So, this is a game of power politics of the first order. This is not real estate negotiation. This is not the idea of just "Getting to Yes." I knew Roger Fischer's son, so I'm familiar with all of this. This is now power politics of the first order, and Iran's just beating us at power politics and they're doing it almost every single day.

Q. So, Joe Kent, the former top Trump official who resigned in protest, has put out a version of another third way that he sort of presented which is similar to what you were talking about, but not exactly. He was saying what Trump should do is just walk away, but leave sanctions in place. And you leave Iran in this situation where they are left to negotiate bilateral or multilateral deals around passage through the strait of Hormuz, but it's very difficult for them to fire on Israel, or anybody else at that point, if they're not fired on themselves, because then they become the aggressor, rather than defending themselves. But if sanctions continue to choke them, yes, they'll be getting revenue. Yes, they'll have control of the strait of Hormuz, but without the ability to engage with the international economy, they would be slowly choking out.

A. Joe Kemp's plan is a version actually of you walk away, and Iran becomes the force center of the world's power, maybe a little more slowly, because he's trying to slow it down a little bit. It's not really a third way. Because there's no actual way to stop Iran from exerting more power in Kent's plan. And what I'm specifically referring to as the hole in Kent's plan is the UAE and Saudi Arabia. So, if we follow Kent's plan and keep the US blockade going, that's going to open the door for Iran, not necessarily in a week, but in several months, to topple the governments of the UAE and Saudi Arabia over time. You can never really put a time clock on how you topple governments and so forth. But they have a lot more powerful ways, because they're in the region. There are different groups inside of the UAE and Saudi Arabia that they don't like to talk about, who are minorities, who they try to keep a close eye on, of course, but if you can penetrate Iran, they can penetrate you.

So, this whole game here will change. And so the idea that Kent has is well, we'll have a stable equilibrium that will keep a containment band around Iran. And that's just not what's going to happen. This is not Iraq. This is not a situation like Iraq. It's worse than Iraq. There are some similarities of course, but it's worse than Iraq. And so what he's doing is he's saying there's a fork in the road. His paper is saying, I want to take this fork over here. Back away, you know, slow down this rise of Iran becoming the fourth center of world power.

And notice in Kent's plan, they still get nuclear weapons. They can still process all that material and become a nuclear weapons state in Kent's plan. So that's really the hole in the plan. And I'm just telling you what the choices are in front of us, okay? And in this situation, one final point with Kent's plan is, just recognize the world economy still goes over the cliff, or the dips here. So he's not actually opening the strait of Hormuz for the UAE and Saudi Arabia to have its oil exports come out. So just be aware this is the fork in the road. He's choosing clearly fork A.

And then there's B escalation. He doesn't want to do that. And I can appreciate that. I'm not really happy about escalation either. So I'm not really fundamentally saying that the choice he wants is necessarily wrong. I just think we need to go into this with open eyes. And I'm not going to sell the country a bill of goods and say, "Oh, sure. This will all be fine over here." And this is what people are frustrated with me, cuz they want me to be the happy guy who says, "Well, if only we would not do X, and only do this over here, everything's working out." And I'm sorry, Donald Trump has doomed us to a trap. And what you're seeing is Joe Kent choosing one side of that trap, but he's not getting out of the trap.

Q. Yeah. Because the move would be a U-turn at the fork and go backwards. The move would be to pull a U-turn at the fork in the road and go backwards.

A. Well, the move would be go to Star Trek, and go back in time where we don't do this at all. I mean, come on. We're not Doctor Who.

I mean, we're just not in a situation where we can have these magical ideas and go back to February 27. Iran has learned something. Even more than their material gains, they learned something in the last eight weeks they did not know before, which is they can beat America. Not just survive, but actually beat America. And they're not just beating Donald Trump. Nobody in America is coming up with this brilliant plan where we're going to use escalation dominance in a way everyone is happy with. And I'm saying this is not good. This is not good. When a major rival in the world really understands they can beat you, this is different. And this is what Donald Trump has done more than anything else. He's given Iran actual knowledge they did not have before. They had uncertainty before, and they wondered if they could survive, but this is way beyond survival.

And this is why Trump will go down as the worst president probably we've ever had, worse than Jimmy Carter, worse than Lyndon Johnson. And this catastrophic disaster will probably go down the worst since Vietnam. And it won't have necessarily the military casualties of Vietnam, but Vietnam did not wreck the world's economy. And the 2003 Iraq war did not wreck the world's economy. We didn't have gas prices shooting up like this. And that's why this is all on his back, and Iran is not letting him off the hook with some face saving gesture, and that's going to frustrate people

but now
come January so as bad as I'm painting it I'm saying it's going to possibly get quite wor much worse here because I think they
want to torpedo Trump's presidency more than the Democrats want to do it I mean I Imagine that they want to do it worse than the Democrats.
So, what you're what you're getting here is maybe by January here when Trump's presidency is
thoroughly wrecked, unreoverable, the Republicans want to get him out of dodge, not just simply the Democrats
here. Um then you might actually have a situation where they want to because they will be around for decades. Okay?
And and US will be around for decades.
But I'm really I really think this is this missing ingredient that I'm not hearing in the media that Iran I think
has a true interest in wrecking Trump's presidency. And and if and send me emails, folks. Listen, you know, if I'm
missing this on all these other channels, you just let me know. I'm on those channels. I'm watching them on TV.
I'm listening to them on podcast. I'm just not hearing people explain that Iran wants to wreck Trump's presidency.
And that's going to take some time. I mean, if you're really going to do this for real, you see, and make it so he can't come back after January 6, the
Democrats let him back in back in office. I mean, think about that.
They're they weren't. If you want to wreck a president, you got to do worse than what happened here. Uh, and I think they're trying to do that. Now, I wanted
to get you to respond to the very influential popular historian Neil Ferguson who's of course at the
Hoover Institute. Now, he posted a viral ex I guess tweet yesterday. Um and it's
super interesting. Now, back when the war began, Professor P, you were already warning of the escalation trap. Neil
Ferguson's first column on this was tepid, but I would say bullish on the US. Now, as of yesterday, he's saying,
his point 7 in this was, the Iranians have survived regime change and discovered that closing the straight is just as powerful a lever in economic
warfare as they had always hoped. It's not despite the Russian quip, a quote,
"economic nuke, because unlike a nuclear weapon, you can use it." Then he says,
"Where we go from here is fairly predictable. I would be surprised if Trump now deploys ground forces. There will be more negotiations. So,
Islamabad, here we come. There may have to be more bombing if the Iranians dust down the North Vietn Vietnamese playbook of stringing the US negotiators along.
Neil's actually the Kissinger Kissinger's biographer. Uh he continues to say the final compromise will take longer to be agreed upon than Mr. Market
currently believes. What's your response your response to this professor P?
Because in a way he's come around to your perspective.
Yeah, that's right. Yeah. So, one thing one thing that your listeners would not be surprised about but won't know is I do more than talking to the media.
I talk to very important people outside of the media. These are people in government. These are people not in government. And we have more lengthy
back and forths here. And and you you're willing to give me quite lengthy back and forth. I really appreciate that.
Most of the media won't do that. But but we have your audience gets more informed and so you can actually have that intelligent conversation and you see
right away that he's directly on the pay path. Right? That is I mean there's no gap there's no daylight anymore. Well,
I'm just pointing out and and I won't talk about these private conversations who they are and so forth but it does it is the case that there are very very
smart people. Uh I highly respect people even people that may seem to disagree with me. I I there are people I
highly respect in that way and I will have lengthy conversations with them offline. Uh so we can talk about things
that they really want to hear about which which might appear to the ordinary person to be you know sort of off track or in the weeds but when you get
the experts together this is what the talk is like. I'm sorry to say that we get to into the weeds. we get into certain things and it really does matter
uh here and I value that tremendously here and I think that for me is quite an honor that and that Ferguson and I
and whether it's an honor to me or he just come out with his own view I don't really that's not really that's neither here nor there what it really means is
the world is coming around and these frameworks that I've been laying out super smart people everybody is
I think I get so much email here about the benefits of the frameworks,
the actual frameworks. You see what I mean? Not just simply commenting on yesterday's news. And I think that's what you see here. And I'm really glad I
started the Substack. I could not be happier. And we're glad to have you here,
Professor Pap, to talk about the Substack. Hope everybody goes over and subscribes to the escalation trap.
Yeah. I think that people need to be aware just before we leave here. that so yesterday I published a trajectory
on the substack here and this was I said the ceasefire is about to end in just a few hours don't be surprised if you see
the next stage would be demonstration attacks and what you're seeing and I don't think Iran could have read it and responded in
time it's just not possible but what you're seeing is the validation of this when Iran took those ships and then the other thing you didn't mention is they
had a parade where they brought in the missiles. I don't know if your listeners can see or your viewers can see the missiles. This is just like with North Korea. This is just like with Russia,
just like with China. And what they're doing with those missiles is they're saying, "You mess with us. We're going to go beyond demonstration." And those
missiles have American city names on them. Now, they can't really reach American city. So I don't want America to freak out over this, but what they
are doing is they're moving up a ladder of escalation that other countries have done. This is just, you know, if you studied this for 30 years,
demonstration, there's whole articles on this. You would see they're they're moving up a standard rung themselves.
And the fact that they're having those missiles out there, that tells me that this is not going to be over anytime
soon. the idea that they're simply now going to cowtow here and just surrender that power. I don't think so. They're
feeling their oats here and they're sending a direct signal. Maybe most Americans don't understand it, but I'm those people in the White House get it,
which is America, you're next. You keep targeting us in our homeland. Yeah.
So maybe Joe Kent's not necessarily all bad,
right? Well, I think he's trying to speak Trump's language and be persuasive. He's trying to speak Trump's language, but Trump wants a clear
victory. He wants the fig leaf of victory. And the reason is cuz that way he can recover his presidency.
I don't think Iran is going to be if Iran was going to give him the fig leaf of victory, they would have met with JD Vance. And and I don't and I think
that's a clear sign that they understand what Trump wants. And he and he's begging them for this. Um, and I think
that this is just not I don't think they're going to play that game because this is signaling to me, intel to me
that they're revealing their preference. They would rather wreck his presidency than give the fig leaf of
cover for him to declare victory. That's why he can't declare victory now. What's he going to say? You know, they took a ship and now we won. I mean, this is
just not Yeah, they're making it impossible for Trump to declare a victory and walk away.
He can still walk away. He just can't walk away with a victory. Well, he can declare it.
He can try it, but they're going to say they're going to do the next thing and say, "Sure, they're going to have the big image. Trump declare victory, we take ship. Trump declare victory, we topple UAE."
That's the That's what they want. That's what they're doing. And I'm just saying this is this is power politics of the First Order. Trump's playing domestic
politics, okay? Iran is playing power politics. And you can see that when our CIA goes in to topple governments, as we
have done, including in Iran, okay, we're playing hard ball for real. We may paper it over with we're Mr., you know,
Trump said we're Mr. N. No, we're rarely Mr. Nice. When we topple governments here, we're pretending to have the fig
leaf of this. We topple. It took us 15 years to topple the Syrian government.
So over time, you might be able to topple a government like 15 years, you see. So you keep at it for 15 solid
years, you might be able to topple the Syrian government, but in that 15 years versus Iran, you can see Iran has a lot of cards to play in that in that period of time.
Professor P, thank you so much for being so generous with your time once again. We really appreciate it.
Well, and thank you. It's just a a great pleasure and honor to be on with you in every possible way and I just wish your folks and the audiences here all the best.
No, they they love to hear that. All right, we'll talk to you later.
Hey, if you like that video, hit the like button or leave a comment below. It really helps get the show to more people. And if you'd like to get the full show,
ad free and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up at breakingpoints.com.
That's right. Get the full show. Help support the future of independent media at breakingpoints.com.

[admin]

Pepe Escobar: “Total Failure”: Trump’s Blockade Just Backfired Disastrously
Dialogue Works
Apr 22, 2026