reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- The video argues that the ceasefire in the Iran conflict is collapsing and predicts a renewed crisis in three days, citing Professor Robert Pape who predicted “three days left” for a developing disaster. The Strait of Hormuz is described as never having truly opened, with ongoing restrictions and navigation dangers. - The presenters criticize mainstream reports that markets were surging and that the Strait was open, asserting these were lies. They claim Iran is signaling through radio to ships and that ships, including those linked to the United States and Israel, remain barred or require special coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They note continued mine risks flagged by the U.S. Navy and that several vessels attempted to pass on Friday but turned back. - They quote a statement that a deal would be announced and a supposed opening would be conditional and unstable, and they reference Trump aboard Air Force One admitting that bombs would likely start falling again if no deal is reached by Wednesday when the ceasefire ends. - A discussion of purported market manipulation follows: Reuters reportedly stated that about twenty minutes before an announcement that Hormuz was open, traders dumped nearly 8,000 Brent crude futures, a $760 million bet that oil would fall. After the president’s announcement, crude prices dropped sharply. The presenters claim someone in the Trump administration likely knew the announcement in advance, suggesting insider trading and a broader pattern of insiders making large bets just before news hits. - On Saturday, the narrative of “open passage” collapsed publicly: Britain’s foreign secretary said there was still no normal passage; Iran’s Revolutionary Guard officials said only a limited number of tankers would pass and that Hormuz would remain under strict Iranian control, allowing certain nations but not the U.S. They note the U.S. did not ensure full freedom of navigation for Iranian-linked shipping, and that at least two merchant ships, including two Indian-flagged vessels, were hit while attempting to cross. - Iran’s side is cited: a professor on the show claimed Trump lied and fabricated the whole situation, suggesting that Iran did not agree to the commitments Trump claimed. The blockade by the U.S. is described as ongoing, with over 10,000 U.S. personnel and multiple ships involved, and U.S. officials reportedly planning to board and seize Iranian-linked tankers in international waters with gunships. - An Iranian general is quoted as warning that if the war restarts, it could become a wider world war. Professor Pape’s warning is emphasized: within ten days, shortages could occur, moving from price shocks to physical constraints to economic disaster, with today’s date cited as April 19 and the three-day forecast implying disaster around April 22. The Financial Times is cited for a story about a coming global food crisis due to the war. The Strait’s lack of genuine normalization is claimed to threaten fuel, plastics, fertilizer, supply chains, food prices, and manufacturing, potentially impacting every family. - The video ends with a warning to prepare with food stores and family protection, reiterating that the Strait was never truly opened and that a market fairy tale was fed to investors. It suggests a new escalation could occur in the coming week, with those who lied on Friday potentially denying responsibility. - Sponsorship segment: The video promotes US Gold Mining Incorporated (ticker USGO) and the Whistler project in Alaska, detailing a positive preliminary economic assessment (PEA) projecting 2.7 million ounces of gold, nearly 600 million pounds of copper, and nearly 6.6 million ounces of silver over about a 15-year mine life. It notes a potential life-of-m mine of about 3.6 million gold-equivalent ounces, with payback estimates varying based on gold pricing. The sponsor highlights favorable tailwinds from Washington, Alaska’s mining-supportive policies, and a tight ownership structure (roughly 74% held by the parent company and 4.5% by insiders). The presenter urges viewers to conduct their own research using links in the description and highlights exploration targets and political support for domestic mineral production.

The dialogue centers on the current crisis between the United States and Iran, two weeks after a previous discussion. The speakers outline the evolution of events, the prospects for negotiations, and the broader political and ideological context driving the confrontation. Key events and the trajectory of negotiations - Speaker 1 describes recent moves as undermining talks: “Trump announced this blockade, which is an act of war under international law. … And then they were supposed to have a second round of negotiations … and The US shot at an Iranian ship, took over the ship, took the crew hostage.” Negotiations are framed as lacking good faith, with derisive language used by Trump toward Iran. - The atmosphere is described as deteriorating: “democracy diplomacy is not doing well. More chances of a military confrontation.” - There is concern over a potential new round of attacks by the US, and about the legality of continued operations beyond a sixty-day War Powers window without congressional authorization. Iran’s leverage, demands, and feasibility of a deal - The discussion centers on whether Iran’s demands—such as delaying nuclear negotiations, removing the blockade, and controlling who passes through the Strait of Hormuz and at what cost—are feasible for a deal. Speaker 0 notes Iran’s desire to delay negotiations and control Hormuz, while asking whether Trump would accept not getting any concessions and whether Iran’s price could be feasible for a settlement. - Speaker 1 counters that Iran has long-held leverage over Hormuz, which the US seeks to counter with pressure, and argues that both sides seek a diplomatic solution but with differing terms. There is an assertion that blockade of Hormuz is illegal and that Iran has a right to respond under self-defense if attacked. Strategic calculations and potential actions - The Strait of Hormuz is treated as a central strategic chokepoint; Iran’s coastal status and territorial waters are discussed at length. The possibility that Iran would shoot back if attacked is framed as legal self-defense, while the blockade is described as an act of war. - Speaker 1 entertains a mixed approach for Iran: “Both. I would advise Iranian leaders to do both. Give diplomacy opportunity if Trump is interested. … don’t accept bullying because if you accept bullying, then you have to hand over Iranian oil to Trump.” - There is acknowledgment that if Iran chooses to respond, it would be legal and within its rights to do so, given the blockade’s status. Regional dynamics and actors - The UAE’s actions are scrutinized: Israel’s presence and the UAE’s alignment with the US and Israel are discussed, including the UAE’s role in OPEC and broad regional ties. Speaker 1 characterizes UAE as having provided more support to US/Israeli aims and notes a “wrong decision” by the UAE in its current course, suggesting a potential recalibration. - Iran’s broader strategy of “resisting” is described as its single option, with emphasis on not accepting bullying or endless concessions, and with a call to pursue both diplomacy and sustained pressure. Ideology, governance, and internal critique - The conversation shifts to a discussion of the Iranian revolution’s ideology and its domestic implications. Quotes attributed to the late leader Ayatollah Khomeini are examined, with Speaker 1 arguing that translation matters matter and that Islam, properly understood, is a world religion that seeks justice, not domination. The claim is made that Islam is not inherently violent and that the misperception of Islam as a violent force is part of Islamophobia. - A critique is offered of Iran’s domestic social sciences: Iran’s engineering and medical achievements are praised, while the social sciences are described as underdeveloped and too reliant on Western frameworks. The suggestion is that Iran should develop indigenous social sciences to better guide policy and society, arguing that “Iran could do much more” in this area. Personal outlook and conclusions - The speakers acknowledge that both sides appear unwilling to yield on core issues, with a double-track approach suggested: pursue diplomacy when possible, but prepare to resist and potentially escalate if pressures persist. - The conversation closes with an openness to future discussions, including the possibility of a separate program focused on Iran’s internal dynamics and the revolution’s core tenets, to better understand regional concerns and policy decisions.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the unfolding conflict with Iran, focusing on miscalculations, strategy, and potential trajectories. - Speaker 1 says the war is a major miscalculation, identifiable before it began. Signs were evident: movement of military equipment, force postures, and statements suggested that absent an eleventh-hour change by Trump, the plan was to use prepositioned forces and enablers for sustained combat. He notes this pattern matches previous experiences in which the U.S. saw a buildup as a precursor to war, citing Russia’s 2022 invasion and his own observations of earlier prepositioning, logistics, air support, refueling, and large-scale aviation assets (C-17s, C-5s, fighter jets, aircraft carriers). - He argues Iran’s leadership intended to pursue war rather than negotiation, pointing to what he calls a central missed opportunity: the Oman foreign minister’s Friday-night submissions to the Iranian negotiator offering zero reprocessing, stockpile reductions, and at least preliminary talks on long-range missiles and proxies. He asserts that if the Trump administration had accepted those terms, a ceasefire or settlement might have been possible; instead, he claims the next morning’s attack signaled that negotiations were never the aim. - Regarding U.S. objectives, Speaker 1 says the stated aims from Trump were unattainable given Iran’s resolve and the regime’s calculations that fighting a war with the U.S. is less risky than submitting to U.S. demands. He cites a New York Times report indicating Iran believed war with the U.S. was a viable risk, yet he notes Iran’s leadership now appears to be consolidating support at home and regionally after the Ayatollah’s assassination and the subsequent martyrdom of Qasem Soleimani’s successor in Iran’s internal narrative. - On battlefield dynamics, he emphasizes that Iran’s force deployment is not merely pressure but designed for use, with extensive underground facilities capable of withstanding sustained pressure. He forecasts continued high-intensity operations for a period, but warns the U.S. faces a tightening window: if the Iranian side holds firm and the U.S. cannot sustain supplies and missiles, the U.S. could reach a crisis point. - He discusses possible ceasefire dynamics and political reaction: Trump’s suggestion of a ceasefire could be “complete BS” if the Ayatollah’s position remains solid; the martyrdom and regional protests strengthen Iran’s stance. He expects continued escalation and a hardening of Iran’s demands, including sanctions relief or designation changes, should the conflict drag on. - On regional response, Speaker 1 notes that Iran has drawn regional actors into the conflict, with protests supporting Iran across Iraq, Pakistan, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. He says many Iranians—though opposed to the regime—are unlikely to embrace Israel or the United States as a path out of the crisis, given decades of antagonism and past betrayals by Western powers. - Regarding U.S. vulnerabilities, he says there are reports of U.S. casualties (three killed, five seriously wounded, others lightly wounded) though some figures are disputed; the public reporting may lag behind direct sources. He mentions possible gaps in air defense and the risk of shortages in interceptors as drones and missiles proliferate, warning that Iran could escalate if U.S. stocks are depleted. - Looking ahead, Speaker 1 argues the conflict is a battle of wills and a war of attrition. The U.S. attempted a “cheap” approach with naval and air power but no ground forces; Iran appears ready to continue long enough to force concessions. He warns the Iranian threat could extend to oil infrastructure and the broader economy if the United States or its regional partners target Iran’s energy sector, potentially broadening the conflict. - In sum, he characterizes Iran’s strategy as all-in, aiming to impose pain to compel a negotiated settlement unfavorable to the U.S., while the U.S. faces a narrowing margin to sustain supply chains, missiles, and air defenses as the conflict potentially drags on for weeks to months. He cautions that the escalation ladder remains with higher rungs available, including strikes on energy infrastructure, if the conflict widens.

In this discussion, Zhang Shuay Shin and Speaker 1 analyze the evolving U.S.-Iran confrontation through the lens of global power dynamics, the petrodollar, and the shifting balance among major powers. - The war is framed as primarily about preserving the petrodollar. Speaker 1 argues the United States, burdened by enormous debt, seeks to maintain the dollar’s dominance by controlling energy trade through naval power and strategic choke points. The belief is that the U.S. can weaponize the dollar against rivals, as seen when it froze Russian assets and then moved to stabilize oil markets. BRICS and others are moving toward alternatives, including a gold corridor, challenging the petrodollar’s centrality. The aim is to keep Europe and East Asia dependent on U.S. energy, reinforcing American hegemony, even as historical hubris risks a global backlash turning growing powers against Washington. - The sequence of escalation over six weeks is outlined: after the American attack on Tehran and the Iranian move to close the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. eased sanctions on Russian and Iranian oil to maintain global stability, according to Treasury statements. Escalations targeted civilian infrastructure and strategic chokepoints, with discussions of striking GCC energy infrastructure and desalination plants. A U.S. threat to “bomb Iran back to the stone age” was countered by Iran proposing a ten-point framework—encompassing uranium enrichment rights, lifting sanctions, and security guarantees for Iran and its proxies. The Americans reportedly suggested the framework was workable, but negotiations in Islamabad stalled when U.S. officials did not engage seriously. - The broader objective is posited as not simply a tactical war but a strategic move to ensure U.S. imperial supremacy by shaping energy flows. Speaker 1 speculates Trump’s motive centers on keeping the petrodollar intact, potentially forcing China and other partners to buy energy with dollars. Iran’s willingness to negotiate in Islamabad is linked to pressure from China amid China’s economic strains, particularly as energy needs and Belt and Road investments create vulnerabilities for China if Middle East energy becomes unreliable. - The proposed naval blockade is discussed as difficult to implement directly against Iran due to ballistic missiles; instead, the plan may aim to choke off alternative routes like the Strait of Malacca, leveraging trusted regional partners and allies. Iran could respond via the Red Sea (Bab al-Mandab) or other leverage, including the Houthis, challenging Western control of energy corridors. The overarching aim would be to force a global energy reorientation toward North America, though it risks long-term hostility toward the United States. - The roles of great powers are analyzed: the U.S. strategy is described as exploiting Middle East disruption to preserve the petrodollar, with short-term gains but long-term risks of a broader alliance against U.S. hegemony. Europe and Asia are pressured to adapt, with China’s energy needs especially salient as sanctions tighten Middle East supply. Russia is identified as the principal challenger to U.S. maritime hegemony, while China remains economically entangled, facing strategic incentives to cooperate with the United States if required by economic pressures. - The dialogue considers NATO and Europe, arguing that the real contest is between globalists and nationalists in the United States, with Trump viewed as an agent of empire who may threaten the existing globalist framework. The speakers discuss whether this competition will redefine alliances, the future of NATO, and the possibility that a more Eurasian-led order could emerge if Western powers fail to maintain their maritime advantages. - Finally, Russia’s role is emphasized: Moscow is seen as the key counterweight capable of challenging American maritime dominance, with the war in Iran serving, in part, to counter Russian actions in Ukraine and to incentivize alignment with Russia, China, and Iran against U.S. leadership over the next two decades.

- The discussion centers on the Strait of Hormuz blockade amid a claimed ceasefire. The hosts question the ceasefire’s meaning, noting the blockade blocks Iranian ports while talk of abiding by a ceasefire continues. They describe the blockade as highly scripted and incomplete: “The US has a version of what’s going on… stopping every ship. There’s not a ship getting out.” Meanwhile, Iran appears to allow some ships to depart, and China-bound oil shipments have reportedly left the strait and were not stopped. - They compare the situation to “Japanese Kabuki theater,” with a security-guard-like role for some actors and limited real authority. The discussion emphasizes Iran’s multifaceted defense capabilities: coastal defense cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and drones (air, surface, underwater) that could threaten ships within about 200 miles of the coast. The Abraham Lincoln reportedly suffered damage within 220 miles of Iran’s coast, with Trump later acknowledging multiple attack sources. - On enforcement challenges, it’s noted that effective interdiction would require helicopters, destroyers, and other assets; however, aircraft carriers with helicopters still cover only limited areas. Tracking ships at sea is difficult without transponders, making enforcement complex. - The blockaded objective is debated. Early Trump administration moves lifted sanctions on Russia and Iran to keep oil flowing, but more recently sanctions on Russian oil have been reimposed while efforts to choke Iranian oil continue. The global oil market shows a dissonance: futures prices suggesting relief, but actual dockside prices for oil can be extremely high (up to around $140–210 per barrel). The economic impact is emphasized as potentially severe and not aligned with market signals. - There is critical discussion of Donald Trump’s leadership and decision-making: he is portrayed as emotionally volatile, with shifting beliefs and a tendency to see in headlines what he wants to see. A vivid analogy likens Trump to a child living with an alcoholic father, reacting to threats and stimuli rather than rational policy. J. D. Vance is highlighted as one of the few who has opposed Trump’s war approach and faced pressure from others close to Trump. - Diplomatic moves: Russia and China are described as stepping up efforts to broker peace, working with Saudis, Emiratis, and Iranians, and even approaching Turkey. There are signs that a peace process could be built around resurrecting or reformatting JCPOA-style arrangements, such as on-site IAEA inspections and nonproliferation commitments, potentially making them permanent. The possibility of a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is discussed as part of broader regional negotiations. - The blockade is criticized as unsustainable, with concerns about maintenance bases (Diego Garcia) and the risk of escalation if ships are forced into closer proximity to Iran. It’s noted that China has warned it would treat interference with Chinese maritime traffic as an act of war; Iran could still route commerce through Turkmenistan and other corridors, limiting the blockade’s effectiveness. - The broader geopolitical shift is highlighted: the United States is losing influence in the Gulf. UAE resistance to Iran and the Saudis’ precarious balance are pointed out, with Iran signaling it could charge fees for entering the Gulf. The dollar’s waning influence is noted, along with rising Chinese and Russian influence in the Gulf region. - The wider consequences anticipated include energy and food shocks, with cascading economic effects globally. The prospect of extended conflict, internal U.S. political chaos, and potential impeachment pressure on Trump are discussed as factors that could influence the war’s trajectory. The hosts suggest that while a negotiated settlement could emerge, the path is fraught with contradictions, shifting alliances, and competing narratives between Washington, Tehran, and regional players.

Speaker 0 argues that control over the strait is more powerful than any nuclear weapon, noting that control is clearly in Iran’s hands, with additional mining of the southern portion forcing ships to sail right next to Iran’s total control. They criticize MAGA/Trump supporters for claiming Iran must open it immediately, saying, “you can say all the words you want, but Iran still controls the strait. And that means they control the backbone of the energy of planet earth, period.” Speaker 1 responds that Trump is desperate for a solution because the situation is humiliating the United States. They recount the U.S. posture since the Carter era, referencing the Carter Doctrine: to secure the energy-producing region in exchange for security guarantees, ensuring the Strait of Hormuz remains open. They remind that in 1987, during Operation Earnest Will, the U.S. Navy reflagged the Kuwaiti tanker fleet and escorted it through the Strait of Hormuz to protect it from Iraq and Iran. They say the Iranians watched and learned, and have since developed the capabilities to shut the strait down, and that the U.S. cannot keep it open—our navy, air force, and lack of sufficient ground power can’t do it. Therefore, Iran “own this. It is theirs, and they have declared it is ours.” Speaker 1 warns that if Iran continues to shut the strait, it will cause permanent damage, including permanent economic damage globally, with Europe facing an energy crisis it won’t recover from and Asia facing serious economic harm, including China. They note that China has intervened and pressured Iran to come to the table because a significant portion of China’s energy comes from the Middle East and from countries unable to ship oil due to the closure. They conclude that China told the Iranians they must sit down and talk with the Americans, and that Iran didn’t want to come to the table because they are “winning this war,” asserting, “they’re like, keep bombing us. We don’t care. You’re not destroying us. You’re not breaking our will. We’re destroying you. We’re humiliating you.” The Iranians, according to Speaker 1, were told by the Chinese to flow oil again and to begin talks, prompting Iran to sit down with the Americans.

The host notes the ceasefire appears to be over after Israel scuttled Trump’s plans for a two-week peace; the Wall Street Journal reports that Netanyahu was furious he wasn’t included in the peace plan discussions. The host says Israel wasn’t formally part of Iran negotiations and was unhappy it learned a deal was finalized late and wasn’t consulted, according to mediators and a promoter familiar with the matter. Speaker 1 interjects apologetically, then remarks that online narrative suggests that if you say Israel led the US into this war, you’re antisemitic, which they call antisemitic, and speculate that they’re all antisemitic. Speaker 0 describes Israel as throwing a tantrum “like a toddler” after the peace plan’s collapse and launching massive airstrikes on residential buildings in southern Lebanon, supposedly with no military purpose. Speaker 2 counters that civilians are involved and mentions tunnels under the area. Speaker 0 notes these attacks also targeted Iranian and Chinese Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure, calling it a direct attack on China, and claims at least 250 people were killed in these attacks on civilian apartment complexes in southern Lebanon. Speaker 1 adds that bombs continue to hit Beirut, with images described as horrific; there are 256 confirmed deaths at that point. Israel is also ramping up attacks in Gaza and the West Bank, which some warned would happen once the ceasefire was announced. Speaker 3 states that Netanyahu says the ceasefire with the US and Iran “is cute, but it doesn’t really have much to do with Israel,” and that Israel will keep fighting whenever they want, noting that two weeks were announced but not the end of the world. Acknowledgment follows that “we were not surprised in the last moment.” Calls for Netanyahu’s resignation in Israel rise. Iran announces it will close the Strait of Hormuz; the Trump administration says water will open but contradicts Fox News reporting that tankers have been stopped due to the ceasefire breach. Fox News reports raise concerns about whether the plan is credible. Speaker 4 mentions that Iran’s parliament says the ceasefire is violated in three ways: noncompliance with the ceasefire in Lebanon (civilians being slaughtered), violation of Iranian airspace, and denial of Iran’s right to enrichment; Iran insists uranium enrichment remains part of the deal, while the Trump administration claims they will not enrich uranium. Speaker 5 adds that Iran’s ability to fund and support proxies has been reduced, claiming Iran can no longer distribute weapons to proxies and will not be able to acquire nuclear weapons; prior to the operation, Iran was expanding its short-range ballistic missile arsenal and its navy, which posed an imminent threat to US assets and regional allies. The host counters that June had claimed “done enriching uranium,” but Iran says they will do whatever they want, having “won the war.” Speaker 6 asks how one eliminates a proxy’s ability to distribute weapons if the weapons and proxy networks already exist. Speaker 1 notes the points are contentious and shifts to a discussion with Ryan Grimm from Dropside News. The host, Speaker 0, asks Grimm to weigh in on the 10-point plan circulated as Trump’s plan, which Grimm says is not a formal document and not necessarily accurate; a “collection of different proposals” from Iran that was “collected into a single proposal” and later claimed to be new when presented as a new 10-point plan. Grimm describes the process as inconsistent and says the administration’s narrative has become convoluted. A segment follows about a centenarian, Maria Morea (born 1907, died 2024 at 117), whose gut microbiome showed diverse beneficial bacteria; studies of long-lived people show similar patterns, suggesting longevity relates to daily habits and gut health. The sponsor pitch for kimchi capsules is included, noting it provides gut-beneficial bacteria with Brightcore’s product, offering a discount. Speaker 0 returns to the ceasefire discussions, arguing that Israel’s actions indicate it does not want peace. Grimm expands, saying Israel is in a worse position than before and aims to push north into Lebanon and perhaps target maritime resources; Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz would elevate its regional status, with Belt and Road targets implying a significant structural shift. The host questions whether Trump would abandon Netanyahu if necessary and whether Trump would throw Netanyahu under the bus to stop the war. Grimm suggests Trump may prefer an out to avoid broader conflict, while noting the political stakes in the US and international responses. The discussion then revisits how Netanyahu allegedly sold the war to Trump and cabinet members, with New York Times reporting that the aim was to kill leaders, blunt Iran’s power, and potentially replace the Iranian government, while acknowledging that the initial strikes did not achieve regime change and that Iran’s ballistic missiles and proxies have been affected by the conflict. The segment closes with a humorous analogy to a Broadway line about a fully armed battalion.

Speaker 0: The GCC allies are largely blockaded and not getting anything through; only UAE or Oman might be getting a few shipments due to being on the Gulf of Oman side. This is driving higher oil prices. We can’t simply bluff or "play a game of chicken" because it affects the entire world—Asia, Africa, Europe, and the United States. The shortage extends beyond oil to things like helium, and it’s impacting chip manufacturing and broader economic activity. These are medium-term issues already baked in and in short supply, so we’re facing real problems and a question of how long we can endure this. Speaker 1: As energy becomes more expensive—oil at $110, then $120, $130, $140, $150, rising until this crisis ends globally—the risk is a financial collapse worse than 2007–2008, potentially a depression in much of the world. Economists predict a serious recession, possibly a depression, and these dynamics are what Putin was trying to convey to Trump because Americans are perceived as potentially catastrophic. China is dependent on energy but is expanding nuclear power, has substantial coal, and is investing in renewables; China will survive this. Japan and Korea are on the edge; India is affected; Egypt is trying to feed 100,000,000 and facing famine; Turkey is involved. These states are being pushed toward war not just with Israel but with the United States, since without Israel none of this would be happening, and they know it. Russia, China, Egypt, Turkey, India, and possibly others may join a coalition to force the United States to stop. The speaker would prefer not to go there and believes President Trump should end the blockade, which was adopted because it was the only measure short of returning to war, but the blockade won’t work because the world won’t tolerate it. The president of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) has publicly said it’s time for Korea to defend itself. It’s been time for Korea to take control of its own armed forces for a long time, but the U.S. currently controls all their armed forces and Koreans have not liked that for at least twenty years. Now they want control of their own armed forces. The speaker expects the dissolution of the United States’ unofficial overseas imperial holdings, predicting the Koreans will expel the U.S., with Japan likely following. In the Pacific, trilateral efforts among Korea, the Philippines, and Japan are forming to cooperate with the U.S. in a future war with China—not in our lifetimes or on the planet, as no one wants war with China. Nobody wants war with China; China is increasingly seen as a safer place for cash and investments in the U.S. This shift began when the U.S. began telling Russians they would not allow them to access billions of rubles and may seize funds, possibly giving cash to Ukrainians. People are watching and asking whether they want to depend on the U.S. financial system or face interference with bank accounts. There are many bad developments right now, and the last thing the American people need is a war, certainly not one involving China, Russia, or any other powers along with Iran, yet that seems to the direction in which things are headed.

In this discussion with Glenn, Professor John Mearsheimer analyzes the U.S. handling of the Iran war under Trump, the role of Israel and the lobby, and the broader implications for the international system as power shifts from unipolar to multipolar. Key points on U.S. strategy and diplomacy - Trump’s approach is a unique form of diplomacy: he pursued a ceasefire grounded in Iran’s 10-point plan as a starting point for negotiations, then moved to a blockade of Iranian ports and allowed escalation elsewhere. The aim, according to the speakers, was to gain breathing space to rearm and regroup, and to press Iran into concessions. - The absence of a viable military option: there is no credible American military path to victory in the Iran war. Escalation would be Iranian-dominant, and further escalation would damage the world economy, creating political and economic consequences domestically and internationally. - The administration’s diplomacy is hampered by incompetence, notably in Ukraine-Russia diplomacy, which erodes confidence in negotiating with Iran as well. The Israeli lobby adds pressure to avoid a peace that acknowledges Iran’s gains. - Four goals in the war, from an Israeli perspective, are regime change, eliminating Iran’s nuclear enrichment, destroying long-range missiles, and stopping Iranian support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Israel and its lobby view the situation as existential and push for continued pressure unless Iran is decisively defeated. From the U.S. perspective, this means consensus among allies is fragile and often subordinated to domestic and lobby pressures. The strategic logic of the blockade and escalation - The blockade is not a war-winning instrument. The naval option is constrained by ship counts, wear on assets, potential Chinese escorts, and reciprocal Iranian actions (Iran already captured ships in retaliation). Iran’s tolerance for pain is high, and the blockade is not a reliable lever to force compliance. - Air power failed to defeat Iran, confirming that the war cannot be won through bombing alone. Ground invasion is unlikely due to limited American combat troops, political will, and public tolerance for casualties. Consequently, the U.S. has turned to naval coercion via the Strait of Hormuz and global oil interdictions, but this too is unlikely to compel a definitive Iranian capitulation. - A ceasefire is seen as essential to halt the fighting and begin negotiations; however, the ceasefire has not achieved meaningful negotiations because the blockade remains in place, and Iran has demanded its end as a condition to return to talks. Possible Iranian responses and risk dynamics - If the United States were to resume massive bombing, Iran could launch a “Goderdammerung” response—shutting down the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, attacking energy infrastructure and desalination plants, and wrecking the world economy. This would imply a broader regional and global calamity, with Iran threatening to pull down others with it. - The Iranians are expected to leverage the Strait of Hormuz and toll revenues, and to press for sanctions relief and ongoing control of the Strait as bargaining chips. The blockade may inflict pain, but Iran has shown a high capacity to tolerate it, making the naval option unlikely to deliver victory. Europe, diplomacy, and the evolving alliance system - Elbridge Colby’s remarks suggest Europe should take primary responsibility for conventional and Ukraine support, reflecting U.S. weapon stock depletion and a shift toward East Asia as the priority theater. This signals a “buck-passing” of security obligations and a withdrawal of the United States from Europe at the conventional level. - The Colby framework implies the U.S. is reorienting away from Europe and toward East Asia, potentially weakening NATO cohesion as American weapons support diminishes. This could push Europe to diversify security arrangements and rely less on U.S. guarantees. - There is a broader pattern of “divorcing” from allies: as the Gulf, Europe, and Ukraine face continued pressures, the alliance system frays. The U.S. may seek to offload security burdens, while Russia and China adapt by intensifying their own strategic ties and exploiting the rifts within Western alliances. The multipolar world and regional flashpoints - The discussion emphasizes that the world has moved from a post–Cold War unipolar moment to a multipolar system, with East Asia (China) as the primary U.S. strategic focus, but with persistent, volatile conflicts in Europe (Russia-Ukraine) and the Middle East (Israel-Iran, and allied networks like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis). - The speakers stress the interconnections among conflicts: resolving Israel-Iran involves Hezbollah and Hamas; resolving Ukraine involves European commitments and American supplies; and the evolving alliance structures—where the U.S. may reduce its conventional footprint in Europe—could heighten tensions or provoke Russian reactions. Final reflections - The conversation closes by acknowledging the plastic, uncertain moment in world politics: many possible futures depend on diplomacy, leadership choices, and how quickly new equilibria are formed among emerging great powers. The two speakers stress that avoiding a major conflagration will require careful diplomacy, recognition of interlinked flashpoints, and a willingness to rethink traditional alliance structures in a multipolar world.

In this discussion, Speaker 0 interviews Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Corps intelligence officer, about the implications of a phone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and the broader geopolitics around Ukraine, Iran, and energy. - On the Trump-Putin call and diplomacy with the US: Ritter notes that Trump initiated the call, and Russia has kept a diplomatic channel open with the United States, despite tensions and distrust. Russia reportedly invited figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to continue diplomacy. He interprets Russia’s openness as a strategic move to maintain influence in decision-making, particularly with the US seeking Russian assistance on energy and conflict termination in Ukraine and Iran. - Russia’s behavior in response to Western strikes and its strategic calculus: Ritter argues Russia has deliberately avoided a rapid military overreaction to Western actions (e.g., UK strikes on Bryansk using Storm Shadow missiles and Flamingo systems) to prevent elevating Ukrainian nationalism or provoking a harsher Western stance. He suggests Russia can legally justify countermeasures against British facilities tied to Storm Shadow and Flamingo production, but chooses restraint to avoid elevating domestic political backlash and to exploit diplomatic openings. - Economic dimensions and sanctions: He contends Russia benefits from the lifting of oil sanctions, with Russia able to sell crude at much higher market prices, improving its budget and war finances without further escalation. This is framed as a strategic reward for keeping the diplomatic channel open and for not overreacting militarily. - The strategic objective in Ukraine and the West: Ritter states Russia aims to remove Ukrainian nationalism from Europe’s security equation and to establish Ukraine as a neutral party. He argues that Russian actions, including potential pressure on Ukraine and Western states, are designed to compel a settlement more favorable to Moscow, with less emphasis on Ukrainian terms. - The Iran context and US leverage: The conversation posits that Russia’s phone call with Trump could enable further discussions with Kushner and Witkoff on terms that reflect Russian objectives, given the US’s urgent need for Russian help on energy and geopolitical cover. Ritter suggests Moscow could pressure Iran to negotiate in a way that aligns with broader Russian goals and reduces US influence, including potentially linking Ukraine settlements to Iran’s termination or moderation. - Off-ramps and the Iranian war: In Iran, the sole off-ramp is one Iran accepts; the US and Israel no longer control the process. Ritter argues that US strategies (e.g., general Cain’s claims about missile successes) are misguided, with Iran reportedly evading decisive pressure and maintaining leverage. The path forward would involve Russia acting as mediator and engaging Iranian leadership more directly, while the US’s ability to impose a decisive settlement appears limited. - US military options and feasibility: Ritter points out the limits of US military options in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. He argues that large-scale ground involvement (e.g., 80,000 Marines to seize territories around Hormuz) is impractical given resource constraints, political risk, and logistical challenges. He criticizes the reliance on bombing campaigns with insufficient precision munitions and questions target selection and legality, highlighting a historical precedent where strategic air campaigns did not compel German surrender in World War II. - Broader geopolitical consequences and alliances: The discussion covers how a perceived US strategic defeat could reshape global alignments. Ritter foresees BRICS strengthening as the US loses credibility, with China advancing in Taiwan and the South China Sea, and Russia expanding influence in the Middle East. He suggests Iran could emerge as a regional power, while Israel’s nuclear program could come under renewed pressure. Russia’s involvement in the Middle East, grounded in a strategic framework with Iran, provides Moscow with diplomatic legitimacy to lecture Gulf states. - Lavrov’s stance and Gulf politics: The speakers address Lavrov’s public admonition of Gulf states for pressuring Iran and seeking Western support, arguing this reflects Russia’s adherence to its diplomatic framework and a legally grounded position. Russia’s recent strategic framework with Iran underpins its legitimacy to influence Gulf behavior. - Closing assessment: Ritter emphasizes that the war’s trajectory is being driven by Iranian resilience and US strategic miscalculations. He maintains that Russia’s role as mediator and its leverage over energy markets position Moscow to shape outcomes, while the United States appears increasingly constrained, resource-drained, and vulnerable to strategic defeats on multiple fronts. The result could be a reordering of global alliances and regional power dynamics, with Russia and Iran gaining greater influence and the US recalibrating its priorities accordingly.

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis and Glenn (Speaker 0) discuss the rapidly evolving situation around the Strait of Hormuz, the Lebanon ceasefire, and the broader implications for war, diplomacy, and global energy. - Iran asserts the Strait of Hormuz is open, contingent on conditions tied to the Lebanon ceasefire. Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi said the strait would be open “in conformity to the conditions that were set when they did the original ceasefire,” and the period of that ceasefire “expires… local time” in a few days. Iran’s stance includes three conditions: ships must be commercial, passage of a military ship is prohibited, ships and cargo must not be linked to any belligerent state; ships must pass through the route designated by Iran to avoid mines; passage must be coordinated with Iranian forces responsible for the passage, acknowledging Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps control of the strait. - The United States position is contrasted: President Trump stated, via Truth Social, that there is “no truth” to a deal reported by Axios about unfreezing Iranian assets in exchange for reprocessed material, and asserted he would not give any funds. Trump suggested he’d personally press to obtain the reprocessed material. He also claimed Iran promised never to close the Strait again. Iran’s side emphasizes a two-way street and that the strait’s openness depends on their terms, implying an incompatible dynamic with Trump’s one-way demand. - The Lebanese ceasefire is central to the conditions for Hormuz opening, with Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ibrahim Al-Faqqar warning that if the naval blockade continues, it would be a violation of the ceasefire. This sets up a potential contradiction: the Strait may be “open,” but the openness is conditioned on Lebanon and on how the blockade is treated. - Market reaction: oil dropped about 12% on the announcements, though observers warn the details matter greatly and a true opening depends on mutual compliance and ongoing events. - Military and diplomatic dynamics: both sides are preparing for renewed hostilities. The US has increased interceptor and offensive missiles and prepared systems (JASMs, Tomahawks, SM variants). Secretary of Defense and Trump indicate a readiness to resume hostilities when the ceasefire ends, though President Trump also notes possible diplomatic maneuvers. Iran is reportedly excavating tunnels, refurbishing underground missile facilities, and moving assets, while the US is reinforcing with ships and air traffic. Diplomatic efforts are occurring with multilateral engagement, signaling negotiations could extend beyond the current window. - Ground invasion scenarios: a US ground invasion of Iran is deemed physically impossible or highly impractical. Estimates suggest requiring 400,000–500,000 troops, with Iran’s mountainous terrain and fortified positions providing a lethal environment. Even efforts to seize coastal sites like Hormuz or Bandar Abbas would be costly and strategically indefensible, potentially yielding only temporary gains. - Endgame options presented by Davis as the three main paths for President Trump: (1) negotiate a settlement on terms minimally acceptable to Iran—likely including control of the strait, security guarantees, and reparations; (2) a sudden “firestorm” of bombing and energy-system strikes to coerce concessions; (3) maintain the blockade and pursue a prolonged economic pressure strategy, wagering on longer-term pain. All options carry significant downsides for the United States and global markets. - Economic and global risk: even a diplomatic breakthrough could leave lasting effects on energy, fertilizer supply, and broader economic stability. Experts warn of a potential global recession or even depression if the crisis persists or worsens, due to disruptions in oil, fertilizers, and related sectors. - The discussion closes with cautious optimism about diplomatic space, balanced by realism about the profound challenges and the likelihood that the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, with substantial economic and geopolitical risks no matter which path is pursued.

Speaker 0: Welcome to game plan. I'm Shivan Jan now. So far, there is only one winner in this war in West Asia, and that's Russia. Mind you, I'm not saying that this was acknowledged by the European Council president Antonio Costa. US Israeli strikes in West Asia, they have driven up the price of oil, strengthening the Kremlin's ability to fund its military campaign. Now in a sharp reversal from last year's policy of penalizing countries for buying Russian energy, US treasury secretary Scott Pessen said that The United States could unsanction other Russian oil to keep the flow of oil intact. And this is because the Strait Of Hormuz, the pivotal point from where this war is kind of converging, that is under complete Iranian control. Movement of ships has been blocked. Movement of oil has been blocked. It has shot up the oil prices, and the repercussions are being felt across the world at this point. Is the war proving to be a boon for Russia whose economy is dependent on energy exports? As the state of Hormuz gets blocked, Russia gets a free hand at selling its oil at rates that can be expounded without proper discounts as well. Is Putin the one winning in the war that US and Israel started against Iran? To discuss this with me on game plan is doctor Glenn Deesen, professor of international relations at the University of Southeastern Norway. Glenn, always a pleasure speaking with you. Thanks so much for joining me here. Trump and Putin, they held a call recently, the first time this year, and this was to discuss the discuss the ongoing hostilities in Iran. What do you think they would have discussed, and what kind of a role can Putin be playing in the ongoing war? Speaker 1: Well, I assume some of the things to discuss was obviously the the the extent to which The US and Russia targets each other because one of the things that the American media has been complaining about is the likelihood that Russia is providing intelligence to Iran for targets, but of course this is what The United States been doing for years and continues to do, that is give the Ukrainians targets to hit Russia. So I think there's a necessity to begin to discuss is appropriate and again what happens behind these doors, I don't know. But also of course there has to be some scaling back of the energy sanctions against Russia to bring this, the energy prices under control. As you suggest, they are now very much out of control. But I think also the main thing they've discussed is how to bring this war to an end because I think it's perfectly clear now that this US attack on Iran was a terrible mistake, and it appears that Putin would be the the main middleman who would might be able to bring an end to this war. But, again, it depends what can be done as what the Iranians will demand may be more than what the Americans can deliver. Speaker 0: Glenn, as you mentioned, Putin could perhaps be the main person to bring peace in this war. Putin has the highest chance of acting as peacemaker in West Asia. Is there anyone other than Putin at this point who can bring? Because just look at the optics of it. US starts a war, and I think ten days into it, he needs to make a call to Vladimir Putin to discuss that same war. How does it look for The US? Speaker 1: Well, they don't care for this, of course, but that it's similar to what to what happened with the war against Syria. That is, if you remember, back at president Obama's time, he had set these red lines, he were gonna attack Syria. It was quite obvious that this would be a disaster. So he went to the Russian president and he was able to get a deal through and which essentially took Obama's chestnuts out of the fire. So it was, you know, it it it is the reality or the optics of it isn't great given that The US has been fighting a proxy war for years against Russia, but but, know, at some point, you have to put the optics aside. Who who else would be in a position to help to negotiate this? I'm thinking, you know, perhaps China could be a middleman, but I think given that The United States, especially under the Trump administration, wants to improve bilateral ties with Russia, I I I think he's probably the best, yeah, the best bet. Speaker 0: Would it be fair to say that Putin is emerging as a winner in this ongoing West Asia war, which only seems to be expanding within the West Asian region? Speaker 1: Well, no. I think, yeah, to a large extent, I think that is correct because the energy prices are way up. The US have to scale back sanctions. The all the weapons which The US had intended to ship towards Ukraine to fight Russia is now being depleted. For European leaders, as you mentioned earlier on, to who aspire to prolong the war in Ukraine, this is an absolute disaster. And we'll see that countries that cut the energy ties or at least reduced energy ties with Russia at the best of American pressure, they of course have learned a lesson now as well that this was not a good idea that you don't necessarily put bet too much on a hegemon in decline, so countries who before paid discounts now may have to pay premium. We'll see that Iran, which I assume is getting some support from Russia sees this relationship improving dramatically. They're moving much closer, which is good for Russia because the Iranians always have some suspicions towards the Russians given well a long history they've had through the centuries of conflict. So all of this improves. You can also say that The Gulf States, the weakening of The Gulf States has also a big impact on weakening The U. S. Ability to restore its hegemony because what show what's obvious now is that the Gulf States are not getting protection instead they're becoming very vulnerable as frontline states and The US is no longer seen as that reliable. Well, if they're not going to bet their security on The United States anymore then they may not have that much pressure to sell their oil in dollars. You're not gonna have those recycled petrodollars coming back to The US, and suddenly the whole AI race with China looks a lot weaker as well. So I think across the board, a lot of things look good for Russia, but and there is a big but here, and that is I don't think that the Russians want this war nonetheless because the Russians, much like the Chinese, value stability and predictability. And what's happening in Iran now could again, if something would happen to Iran collapse, that would be a disaster for this Greater Eurasia initiative that is to integrate economies of Greater Eurasian Continent, but also this could spiral into a world war. So from this perspective, it's very dangerous and I don't doubt that the Russians therefore want to put an end to this war simply because I guess much like India, they don't want the Eurasian Continent to be too China centric, they would like to have many poles of power and this requires diversification. This means that the Russians need close ties with Iran, with India and other countries. So for the Americans to knock off Iran off the, you know, the chessboard, the greater Eurasian chessboard would be a disaster for the Russians. So, yes, I think they're prospering or benefiting from this, but they they do wanna put an end to it. Speaker 0: Understood. Glenn, let me just come to the Strait Of Hormuz. You know, the objectives of U. S. Behind starting this war, that has been questioned enough. Why did you start this war in the first place? Those are questions not just emerging, you know, globally. They're also emerging from inside The U. S. But if you look at what a win will actually look like for US, would it be the state of Hormuz? Like, which whoever controls the state of Hormuz is eventually who walks away as you know, walks away with the victory at this point because The US was looking for a change in regime. They mentioned it enough number of times. That hasn't happened and doesn't seem like it's going to happen. Is the state of Hormuz the winning factor now? Speaker 1: Well, I I I don't think any The US would be in a position to control this just given the geography. So The US obviously went into into this war with the objective of regime change. That was the goal. This was the decapitation strike, this was the hope of killing Khamenei and obviously it didn't work. I think it shouldn't have come as a surprise, but you know killing the leader of Iran only created more solidarity within the country. And also the idea that the whole armed forces would begin to disintegrate once they had been punished enough, also proven to be incorrect. So I think at the moment you see the American pivoting a bit. Some are talking about the Strait Of Moose that this should be a goal, others are saying you see a shift now towards saying well, actually what we really want to do is just degrade Iran's missile capabilities that they won't have this long range missiles. And again, you know, these are the kind of vague objectives which they can essentially declare victory today then because Iran has had many of its missiles destroyed. Also it launched a lot of its missiles at U. S. Targets which means that its missile stockpile has been reduced. So this should be a source of optimism when The U. S. Moves from this very hard line objective such as regime change and they shift in towards missiles, reducing the missile stockpiles or something like this. But the straight of our moves, I think, is beyond what what is reasonable. It's it will be too difficult. So I don't think they will But why push too hard on do Speaker 0: you feel it would be difficult if I were to just look at the bases that they have across West Asia? They have enough military might. Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, have their bases there. How difficult would it be to exert that military might over the Strait Of Hormuz? Speaker 1: Well, controlling it just means the ability to shut it down. Many countries would have the ability to shut down this narrow strait. The problem is that no one benefits from it, that is the Gulf States are hurt, Iran is hurt from it, The US and the global economy is hurt. So it becomes an exercise in self harm. The reason why the Iranians are doing this, the ability to shut down the Strait Of Hormuz is because The US has the ability to inflict a mass amount of destruction. It can go after civilian infrastructure, it can well, look what they've done to Tehran. It looks like, well, just, you know, the chemical warfare there. You've seen in terms of going after his fuel depots. They're going after the water supplies in Iran. You you see all these things. This is what America can do. Iran doesn't have that ability. They can't hit The United States. What they can do is cause economic pain. So, yes, I think The US and many of the Gulf States can also shut down the Strait Of Our Moose, but but but that's not that's it doesn't have any purpose. It doesn't have any reasoning. Speaker 0: Can they eradicate the Iranian control over the Strait Of Hormuz? I'm not talking about shutting it down, but just get rid of the Iranians from there and they then decide who gets to control and when it has to be shut and when it has to be opened and remained and kept open and secured. Can The US exert that kind of military might over the state of Hormuz to control it? Speaker 1: Then one need us to control a massive amount of Iran's territory, which is a huge territory with populated by 90,000,000 people. So this seems very unlikely and if closing down the Strait Of Hormuz would depend on very sophisticated weapon systems, will be one thing. But this can be shut down with drones which can be manufactured in apartments. It can be also shut down with small naval drones that is this essentially drone operated small torpedoes. There's it doesn't require a lot of high technology which means that The US can't take out very key infrastructure to prevent Iran from shutting this down, to force it to open. But with very cheap and easy to make weapons, the Iranians can shut it down and it's simply too much territory, too large population for The United States to shut down the these capabilities. So at some point, they're have to make peace with the Iranians and make it make sure it's in Iran's interest to keep the Strait Of Hormuz open because it is in their interest. The problem now is that Iran faces an existential threat. That is The US now threatens to destroy not just the government, but also the country. As Trump tweeted, we we will make it impossible for Iran to even rebuild as a nation. And this is what regime change means. There is no replacement government. This means the disintegration and destruction of Iran, a massive civil war which could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. So for them this is existential which is why they went to this great extent. They've never done this before because they never believed that they faced this kind of an existential threat. So if the war ends, the Iranians have no reason to shut this straight down. This is very horrible for them as well. So, no, I I don't think The US can control the straight or almost no one can control it completely because too many actors could shut it down. Speaker 0: Glenn, thanks so much for joining me here on game plan. Whether this war continues further, that only means and if it does, that's essentially what Iran is looking at because they're not capitulating. They're not giving up. They are taking a bad amount of beating. There's no doubt in that, but they are continuing with their counters nevertheless. And straight of hormones is their main play where they're exerting their pressure with whether it's mines, whether it's their own boats, whether it's their own military boats. Now energy experts have also warned that whether the Iran crisis proves a cure for Russia's economy, that depends directly on how long it lasts. But there is little to suggest that Iran is willing to capitulate that what we just discussed. They're inviting U. S. To continue the war on the other hand. That's what the statements from Iran suggest that we're waiting. Come on, on. Now in the midst of this, Russia is emerging as the winner as we just discussed. How long this lasts? It doesn't seem to be in the favor of The U. S. We'll need to wait and watch twelfth day and running. They expected it to last for about four to five weeks, whether it goes the distance or even longer. Let's wait. That was Glenn Deeson joining me here on Game Plan. Speaker 1: Thanks, Yvonne.

The conversation centers on competing analyses of how the current Iran-US risk escalates and what might drive Trump’s decisions. - Robert Pape’s framework is invoked: the escalation trap guarantees a ground operation. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 for his view after having seen Pape’s remarks; Speaker 1 acknowledges Pape’s expertise on escalation, noting he laid out an escalation ladder and taught at senior military colleges. He still questions whether Pape adequately accounts for Donald Trump’s psychology. - Trump’s mindset and advisers: Speaker 1 suggests Trump wants out and might be constrained by hard-right advisers like Pete Hegseth and Stephen Miller, with Lindsey Graham also urging “epic” moves. He argues there has been no decisive operation giving Trump a victory arc, noting the war has involved destroying outdated Iraqi/F-5 fighter jets rather than a clear strategic win. - The Iran situation and off-ramps: The debate touches on whether Iran can or will offer Trump an off-ramp. Speaker 1 says Trump will make or take his own off-ramp, citing the blockade as an example. They discuss a recent movement toward the Western Strait of Hormuz, with ships turning to Iran’s EZ Pass toll-booth route; one cruise ship chose a shallow, non-regular path, suggesting a calculated bypass of typical traffic schemes. - Official statements on the Strait of Hormuz: The discussion quotes Iran’s foreign minister, Sayyid Abbas, who stated that passage for all commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz is open for the remaining period of a four-day ceasefire, on the coordinated IRGC EZ Pass route, with inspection and authorization by the IRGC. Trump claimed the Strait of Hormuz is open, which Speaker 1 terms a desperate interpretation, noting that Iran is effectively charging a toll and that the situation is tied to the Lebanon ceasefire, though Trump claims it is not. - Potential outcomes and strategic interpretations: The speakers weigh whether this is the beginning of broader acceptance of Iran’s conditions, with Iran potentially accepting a World Liberty Financial-backed US stable coin in exchange for keeping enriched uranium. They describe Iran’s tactic as the “cup of chai” strategy—effectively allowing the other side to reveal concessions gradually. - War planning and escalation scenarios: The group discusses possible futures, including a fifth-day US bombing campaign or a renewed air operation, but neither speaker sees an imminent air campaign as likely. They consider the risk of US actions that would violate the ceasefire, such as sinking IRGC boats in the Strait, which would restart full-scale war and imperil the global economy. They also reflect on Trump’s personal incentives to seek a legacy through a dramatic victory, fueled by advisers who push for dramatic moves, versus the financial and political costs for Gulf states. - Concluding viewpoint: There is skepticism about a decisive, orchestrated victory for Trump in the near term and tension between the possibility of limited military actions and a broader, open-ended confrontation.

First speaker: Iran doesn’t really need to attack American ships or force the strait to open because it could actually be advantageous for the strait to remain closed. There are floating oil reserves and cargo ships in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea that Iran could rely on. In fact, Iran has a substantial stockpile: 160,000,000 barrels of Iranian crude already floating at sea, outside the Persian Gulf, past the Strait of Hormuz into the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. That amount could fuel a country like Germany for over two months, and most of it is headed to Chinese independent refiners. Exports remain high, and the blockade is real, even if the timing is late. Do you agree that Iran is prepped for this day? Second speaker: I do agree. I think this is not harming the Iranians as much as it is harming the United States and the rest of the world. First speaker: What is Trump’s thought process? He has spoken with secretary Besant and other advisers, so he’s already sought advice. What alternative could work in Trump’s favor? Second speaker: Whenever the first round of negotiations ended, the president believed that his style of brinksmanship would produce immediate capitulation and agreement by the Iranians. The Iranians have never negotiated like that. Even the first treaty in the late 2000s took a long time to negotiate, not one and done. This administration wants short-term gains, and that isn’t possible with the Iranians. In the short term, the Iranians are in the driver’s seat. Negotiating and diplomacy are very difficult work; you don’t bully your way through. There is no unconditional surrender. There is none of that except in the president’s mind, unfortunately.

Speaker 0 argues that Trump’s shift from “opening the Shadow Homos” to “blockading it” is ironic and reflects a strategic question for the United States. They say the irony highlights a broader question about American strategy and emphasize that their criticism is not merely to criticize but to assess the situation objectively. They note an interesting point raised by an expert: while blockade is not difficult to implement, it “just doesn’t work.” They reference economic experts who have weighed in, recognizing that Iran has undetermined but significant funds and multiple import/export avenues. Although Iran cannot freely pass ships through the Strait of Hormuz, they have alternative routes: the Caspian Sea for imports via land routes, and “floating oil across the world” for exports. The core question becomes how far Trump is willing to go to “strangle the Iranian economy” and whether that would pull the global economy into the mix. In this framing, the conversation centers on the feasibility and consequences of a harsher economic blockade against Iran and the potential global repercussions. Speaker 1 responds by characterizing Trump as lacking empathy for the economic impact on ordinary Americans and, more broadly, on people worldwide. They reference Trump’s own statements, noting that he has said it will “cost us more,” but “we’re gonna make a lot of money.” This quoted sentiment is used to support the claim that Trump does not consider or prioritize the cost to average citizens. Speaker 1 asserts that Trump “doesn’t feel it,” and therefore does not feel a sense of urgency to take action. They summarize Trump’s attitude as not demonstrating concern for the economic impact on the average American or global populations, which underpins the claim that there is no urgency to intervene despite potential price increases for gasoline or other goods. This exchange frames the discussion around the practicality of sanctions, the resilience of Iran’s economic channels, and the perceived indifference of Trump to domestic and international economic costs.

In a discussion about the Iran confrontation and its wider implications, Glenn and John Mearsheimer analyze the sequence of events and underlying dynamics behind President Donald Trump’s statements and policy shifts. - Trump’s two Monday tweets frame the episode: an initial threat to “wipe Iran off the face of the earth” to force concession, followed by a reversal to announce a ceasefire based on Iran’s 10-point plan. Mersheimer emphasizes that this sequence reveals Trump’s desperation to end the war and to secure a ceasefire quickly, then to shift to negotiations with Iran’s plan as the basis. - The framework of the negotiations is contrasted with the US’s prior maximalist aims. The United States had demanded four core goals: regime change, Iran’s nuclear enrichment cessation, elimination of long-range missiles, and cessation of support for groups like the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Mersheimer notes none of these have been realized, while Iran reportedly gains leverage through control of the Strait of Hormuz. - The Iranian 10-point plan is presented as a basis for negotiations that would, in effect, concede the big US demands. Trump’s evening tweet signaling acceptance of the 10-point plan is read as a defeat for the US position and a shift toward Iranian maximalism on its own terms. The claim is that the ceasefire, if it occurs, would involve concessions that Iran had already proposed. - The feasibility of a ceasefire is questioned. Iran’s open Strait of Hormuz depends on Israel halting attacks in Lebanon (on Hezbollah), which has not happened. Therefore, a true ceasefire is not in place, and the Israelis’ actions are seen as undermining any potential halt to hostilities. - The broader strategic picture is outlined. Iran’s leverage includes allied groups (Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas) and the ability to close chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz or the Bab el-Mandab strait via the Houthis. The discussion notes Iran’s large missile/drone arsenal and potential to threaten American bases, though Mersheimer stresses that sanctions and the prolonged war have devastated Iran’s economy, which complicates assessments of its strength. - The role of external powers and economies is highlighted. Mersheimer argues that the global economy—especially oil and fertilizers—drives the push to end the conflict. He suggests China and Pakistan, with Russian input, pressured Iran to negotiate, given the global economic risks of a prolonged war. He also notes that the New York Times reported that all 13 US bases in the Gulf were damaged or destroyed, undermining U.S. presence there. - Domestic political concerns are discussed. Trump’s ability to declare victory while acknowledging defeat creates a political hazard. Vance is presented as a potentially capable negotiator who could press for a ceasefire, but there is concern about internal political blowback if he concedes too much. - Israel’s position is considered crucial. Netanyahu’s government is described as having promoted the war, and the war’s outcome is said to damage U.S.-Israel relations. There is speculation that Israel may consider drastic options, including nuclear consideration against Iran, given the perceived failure of conventional means. - The Ukraine war and its relation to the Iran conflict are explored. If Iran’s war ends or is perceived as winding down, European capacity and willingness to support Ukraine become central questions. The U.S. may shift blame to Europe for Ukraine’s defeat if Russia advances, while withholding weapons to Ukraine to avoid further strain on U.S. stockpiles. - The discussion on rationality in international relations emphasizes that states act rationally when their decisions align with a plausible theory of international politics and a sound decision-making process. Mersheimer argues Europe’s behavior toward the U.S. is not irrational, though he criticizes its liberal-theory basis (NATO expansion) as potentially misguided but not irrational. He contrasts this with Trump’s Iran attack in February 2029, which he deems irrational due to a lack of a plausible theory of victory. - The multipolar world dynamic is reinforced. The war’s outcomes are viewed as weakening U.S. ability to project power, diminishing transatlantic cohesion, and boosting Russia and China’s relative position. The loss of Gulf bases and diminished American influence are expected to push Europe toward greater strategic autonomy, with NATO potentially becoming less meaningful by 2029, depending on future leadership. - Final notes include concerns about the political risk for Vance as a negotiator, the likelihood of a difficult peace process, and the possibility that misperceptions and propaganda—analyzed through historical parallels like the Vietnam War and Walter Lippmann’s ideas—have locked leaders into an “evil enemy” narrative that complicates peacemaking. Overall, the conversation portrays Trump’s messaging as a sign of desperation to end a costly conflict, the ceasefire as a fragile construct dependent on Iranian terms, Iran’s expanding leverage in the region, the fragility of U.S.-Israel and transatlantic bonds, and a shifting global order moving toward multipolarity with lasting economic and strategic consequences.

Scott Ritter discusses the Iran talks, U.S. and Iranian positions, and the broader implications for U.S. foreign policy. - He states the talks aren’t over, describing them as a process. The United States came in crudely and with a stunt, while the Iranians were well prepared with technical papers and talking points. The talks remain ongoing, with both sides leaving technical teams behind after high-level visits; the ceasefire is two weeks and has not been terminated, so the process continues. - Ritter characterizes the situation as “the theater of the absurd” and warns it’s dangerous and could spin out of control. He criticizes Donald Trump’s approach as bluster and high-stakes posturing, saying the Iranians haven’t budged and that the U.S. has no clear objectives in the negotiations. He notes the president allegedly has “hard commitment” to Iran not producing a nuclear bomb, but asserts the fatwa against nuclear weapons remains in place and U.S. actions have undercut that position by killing the official who put the fatwa on the table. - He argues the easiest deal would be to sit down with the Iranians and “shut the door on any potential of Iran ever producing a nuclear weapon,” provided genuine experts were involved, but claims the U.S. isn’t there to make that deal. The aim, he says, is to project U.S. control and to frame Trump as the winner, irrespective of the actual outcomes. - Ritter contends Trump’s inner circle includes JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and others; he asserts Trump is using public appearances (e.g., an MMA event) to signal who is in charge and to replace others who opposed the war. He claims JD Vance did not support the war and is being sidelined or publicly discredited. He also criticizes Rubio as nominally in charge of foreign affairs but notes the State Department has been gutted, lacking a full team and interagency process. - He predicts the next two weeks will yield a deal that makes Trump the winner and Vance the loser, suggesting Rubio isn’t being promoted much and that Trump will throw everyone under the bus. He asserts there is no real change in U.S. capabilities, noting the stockpiles of missiles have not been rebuilt. - On NATO and the Ukraine war, Ritter argues drones are redefining warfare: the Ukrainian and Russian use of drones is changing battlefield dynamics, with drone operators becoming central to military effectiveness. He asserts NATO and the U.S. do not fully understand how to fight this war, and claims the conflict demonstrates the end of NATO and a broader “empire terminating event” linked to America’s failure in Iran. He stresses that drone dominance could break the battlefield’s traditional dynamics, leaving tanks and infantry less decisive. - He claims the Ukraine war’s drone innovation is the most significant development in warfare since dynamite, saying without drones you cannot prevail on the battlefield. - On Melania Trump and Epstein, Ritter declines to engage with the specifics of Melania’s personal involvement, but discusses Epstein as emblematic of America’s elite rot. He argues that Melania normalized relationships with Epstein and Maxine and that she will be seen as an enabler, whether or not criminal liability is established. He contends this politics of normalization reflects deeper decay in American power elites.

- Speaker 0 recounts a conversation with vice president JD Vance, who called from his plane after returning from Washington. The discussion centered on the development—and what was described as an explosion—of negotiations, with the American side not willing to tolerate Iran’s alleged violation of the agreement by failing to open cross-border crossings and ceasefire commitments. The central issue for the United States, per JD Vance as relayed, is the removal of all enriched material and ensuring that there is no more enrichment in the coming years, potentially for decades. - Speaker 1 echoes and expands on this, asserting that the information confirms Joe Kent’s statements about Israel pushing the Trump administration to move the goalposts and demand harsher terms from Iran in order to prolong the war. They argue that Israel’s actions are driven by a need to prolong the conflict, implying it is not in the United States’ or Iran’s interest to continue the war, and suggesting that Israel’s interference undermines a potential settlement. - The speakers present Barak Ravid’s (the Israeli journalist) reporting as further corroboration, describing Netanyahu at a cabinet meeting as having discussed Vance’s call from the plane and reiterating the claim that the American side could not accept Iran’s alleged violations. The central issue remains removal of enriched material and preventing any future enrichment for decades, a shift they frame as a change from prior understandings. - The discussion references Joe Kent’s resignation letter, interpreting it as evidence of shifting goalposts imposed by Israel and reinforcing the claim that Iran’s enrichment levels were being framed as an existential threat requiring zero enrichment, a stance the speakers say Iran never agreed to. They argue that a deal could be reached about uranium enrichment levels and monitoring that would end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz if the United States subordinated Israeli demands to its own interests. - The speakers imply a pattern of influence where JD Vance’s statements and actions are contrasted with what they describe as pressure from Netanyahu and other Israeli figures to derail negotiations. They claim Jared Kushner publicly celebrated a Gaza-related policy outcome they view as aligning with long-standing plans that purportedly prioritize private Israeli interests over American policy, and they allege Kushner’s demeanor signals a lack of restraint despite negotiations failing to produce peace. - The speakers imply, without endorsing, that the ongoing actions and disclosures point toward a broader strategy by Western and allied actors to escalate toward a wider conflict, including World War III, with long-term aims of shaping global governance structures. They suggest that Western leaders are preparing for a major conventional war and acting without public consent or scrutiny, framing recent events as part of a deliberate trajectory toward broader confrontation. Note: Promotional content and advertising by Speaker 2 (yellowshrimpstore/alexandrapshore products) has been excluded from the summary.

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined again by Seyyed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. There’s talk in the US of seizing Kharg Island, which would handle 80–90% of Iran’s oil shipments, effectively a nuclear option to shut down Iran’s economy. What would be Iran’s likely response if the US pursued this path? Marandi: It would be a major problem to access the island because the US would have to fly over Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf. Iran would retaliate if Iranian territory were occupied, taking the war toward a major escalation. The regimes hosting the island would have to pay a heavy price, far greater than now. For the United States, the island is well protected, with Iranian assets on the shore supporting the islanders, and it’s farther from the US Navy and closer to Iran’s shore. But more importantly, such an aggression would be futile: it would not change the Persian Gulf trade through Hormuz, which Iran has effectively controlled by requiring permission to pass. An invasion or occupation would lead to fierce combat and punishment of the regimes that enabled it—Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar—desert-based states with oil and gas but little water. If the US succeeds in taking the island, Iran’s retaliation would involve destroying assets of the cooperating countries. Long-term, Hormuz could be effectively closed, with upstream infrastructure damaged and no oil or gas able to move, making a later reopening contingent on a peace agreement. The operation would be logistically, militarily, and economically disastrous for global markets. Glenn: There are reports Iran is mining Hormuz. Do you know anything about that operation? Marandi: Iran hasn’t mined Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, or the Indian Ocean. The Iranian navy capable of wartime actions is largely in underground tunnels and includes speedboats, surface-to-sea missiles, and a network of underground bases. Iran has not moved to mine the Gulf. It does not want escalation. Iran has always negotiated; US claims that Iran wanted nuclear weapons at the negotiating table are rejected by Iran, the fatwa, and IAEA history. If negotiations had failed, the US invasion would be unjustified. Doha and Qatar are prepared to restart gas facilities and allow oil to flow if peace returns. If the US escalates to destroy key infrastructure, Iran will retaliate, and Iran can hurt US assets and its proxies more than the US can hurt Iran, with long-term global energy consequences. Iran has been striking bases in the region and says it is prepared to continue until after the midterm elections. Glenn: The US energy secretary says the US Navy is studying options to escort tankers through Hormuz. What are the main challenges? Marandi: It would be virtually impossible. Iran’s navy is largely underground, with mines, surface-to-sea missiles, and drones capable of targeting Hormuz from Iran. If open war begins, Iran would retaliate against regimes hosting US bases. Even if Hormuz were opened temporarily, without oil, gas, tankers, or production, there would be no purpose, and energy prices would spike permanently. The US would likely be forced to accept Iran’s terms for peace to allow oil to flow. Glenn: Trump has spoken of further destruction if needed, but says he’s run out of targets. What do you expect from the American side? Marandi: The US is already targeting nonmilitary sites and civilian targets in Iran. They slaughter civilians, including families and children, with premeditation. They could intensify attacks on oil, gas, electricity infrastructure, which would invite Iran to retaliate. Iran’s society is united, with people on the streets despite the bombardments. If the US destroys infrastructure, Iran would respond, but Iran does not want escalation; it would be catastrophic for the global economy. The media in the West is controlled, and there is little outrage at threats to destroy Iran. Glenn: Israeli and American aims now—what’s at stake, and how end this? Marandi: Since the Gaza genocide and Lebanon escalation, Zionism is increasingly viewed as evil, and public opinion against Zionism is growing in the US. The destruction of Israel’s credibility is the greatest defeat, not battlefield losses. End this war now would be prudent; as Iran strikes back, global sympathy for Iran grows and the empire weakens. If Israel were to use a nuclear weapon, that would be catastrophic and could prompt broader proliferation. Glenn: Any chance Iran could retaliate against Britain or European states? Marandi: Europe and the US will have diminished presence in the region; bases would be forced to leave. He notes the possibility of false-flag attacks in the West and asserts Zionist manipulation as a risk, but emphasizes Iran’s determination to defend sovereignty and support for Palestinians and others. Glenn: Just a final note—Iran had three negotiations, not two, including the JCPOA. Thank you for joining. Marandi: Thank you.