reSee.it - Related Video Feed

In a discussion with Glenn about rising US-Iran tensions and the prospect of war, Syed Mohamed Marandi, a professor at Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team, outlines several key points and scenarios. - He asserts that Iranians are preparing for war, with the armed forces building new capabilities and underground bases, while ordinary Iranians remain calm and continue daily life. He notes large demonstrations on February 11, with up to 4,000,000 in Tehran and 26–34,000,000 nationwide, seen as a show of solidarity against what he calls Western “rioters or terrorists” and against aggressive posturing by Israel. He stresses that Iran government negotiations will be framed around Iranian sovereignty: Iran will not negotiate who its friends are, who its allies are, or give up its rights to a peaceful nuclear program or enrichment, but could consider a nuclear deal. He argues any new deal would not revert to JCPOA terms given Iran’s technological advances and sanctions. He says a deal is unlikely under current conditions, though not impossible, and that even with a deal, it wouldn’t necessarily endure long. Ultimately, Iran is portrayed as preparing for war to deter aggression and preserve sovereignty. - The conversation discusses broader regional security, linking Israeli-Palestinian issues to potential peace. Marandi argues that Zionism has ethnosupremacism and that Western media often whitewashes Israeli actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon. He emphasizes that a genuine peace would require recognizing Palestinian humanity and restoring fair treatment, arguing that a one-state solution could be the only viable path given the West’s failure to secure a lasting two-state arrangement. He contends the West has allowed colonization of the West Bank and that only a one-state outcome will resolve the situation, while portraying growing international hostility toward the Netanyahu regime and Zionism, including among young Jews. - On possible US strategies, Marandi rejects the notion of token strikes, arguing that even limited actions would invite broader conflict and potentially false-flag provocations that could be used to escalate toward war. He warns that Iran would respond with full force and could target US bases, naval assets, and regional interests, potentially shutting the Strait of Hormuz or sinking ships, with widespread economic ramifications. He predicts a regional war involving Iran’s allies in Iraq (where PMF played a key role against ISIS) and Yemen, and Hezbollah, suggesting that Arab Gulf regimes hosting US bases would likely collapse quickly in such a conflict. He stresses that Iran’s missile and drone capabilities are heavily focused on the Persian Gulf area and that war would be existential for Iran and its allies, but a dangerous, protracted challenge for the United States. - The potential consequences of US oil and petrochemical disruption are discussed. Marandi notes that Iran could retaliate against Iranian tankers or, conversely, seize Western tankers in response to piracy. He emphasizes Iran’s comparatively lower dependence on oil exports due to sanctions and sanctions-driven diversification, arguing that attacking Iran would backfire economically for the US and its allies. He also highlights that such a war would be regional, not just Iran versus the US, given Iran’s relationships with Iraq, Yemen, and other actors, and that Gulf regimes would be under immediate pressure. - Regarding current US leadership and narrative control, Marandi critiques the inconsistency of Western narratives around regime change, human rights, and democracy, pointing to the Epstein files as revealing a distrustful climate in Western politics. He argues Western media often uniformly pushes a narrative of Iranian repression while ignoring or whitewashing similar or worse actions by Western allies. He suggests that the lack of a cohesive, credible Western narrative signals a shift in geopolitical dynamics and could limit the ability to mobilize public support for aggressive actions against Iran. - They also touch on US-Israeli diplomacy, noting Trump and Netanyahu’s posturing and the Epstein documents’ potential implications. Marandi contends time is not on the side of aggressive policy, given midterm political pressures in the US and growing public skepticism about war, which could undermine leadership like Trump and Netanyahu if conflict escalates. The discussion ends with acknowledgment of the complexity and volatility of the situation, and gratitude for the opportunity to discuss it.

Iran reportedly wants to talk, but according to Speaker 1, they should have done so sooner, during the allotted 60-day period. Speaker 1 stated that on the 61st day, they declared that there was no deal to be made. Speaker 1 believes Iran is not winning and should talk immediately before it is too late.

Mario: Do you think The US should attack Iran? Joel: He could do a large but limited strike designed to punish the Iranian regime, but not explicitly try to topple it. Clint (Glenn): Now it's in the national interest of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons as a deterrent. You think that Iran the authority enemy. Of Not America being responsible for killing thousands of Iranians. It's very strange that we don't recognize the security competition here. You're unbelievable. No legitimate security concerns for Iran. None of your rules. Mario: Gentlemen. Astonishing. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? Clint: I see that’s very dishonest. This idea that The United States and Israel are worried about the Iranian civilians. I think this is ludicrous. If anything, they're doing everything they can to fuel the violence. If we stop threatening them, perhaps we can get something in return. They stop the threat. No. Mario: Never tried we've never gone down this path at all. Joel: You’re just completely ignoring tens of billions of Iranian dollars that go funneling into terrorist organizations that kill Americans, kill our Arab allies, kill our Israeli allies. It doesn't seem to bother you. Mario: Joel, I’m gonna start with you. A pretty broad question. Do you think The US should attack Iran, and do you think they will? Joel: The president has set his own terms. He has three choices: do nothing and frame that as diplomacy; do a large but limited strike designed to punish the regime but not topple it; or go all in toward regime change. He hasn’t made regime change his explicit objective yet. I think he’ll pick option two, a large but limited strike, because negotiations aren’t designed to lead somewhere. The Iranians are not serious, in his view. Mario: Do you think Trump should go with option two, or seek regime change? Joel: He should go with number two. Regime change is something I would love to see, but it’s too big an objective with air power. If the regime is toppled by force, the risks are immense. Damaging the regime—ballistic missiles, some nuclear components—could be enough to protect citizens and allies, even if it doesn’t topple the regime. If a coup follows, that’s a risk. Mario: Glenn, you argued against regime change but acknowledged concerns about the regime’s brutality. Please respond to Joel and the broader points. Glenn: I don’t think Trump should attack. It’s very likely he will, and the objective will probably be a limited bloody nose attack that is going bombed for two or three days or, like last time, twelve, and then pull away, with an implicit understanding that if Iran retaliates, it could be a big war. There is no diplomatic solution because the Iranians reject multi-issue deals; they want nuclear issues to be separate. The Iran regime is existentially threatened, so they’ll respond. The aim should be to recognize key security concerns and pursue a broader security understanding, not just use force. Mario: Joel, respond to Glenn’s point about whether Iran must be considered an enemy and about potential diplomacy. Joel: Does Iran need to be an enemy of The US? No. But this regime is an enemy. The people of Iran do not have to be enemies. The supreme leader believes the United States and Israel are enemies, and for forty-seven years they say, death to America, death to Israel. The Iranian regime has decided they’re the enemy. The Iranian people largely despise the regime. Mario: If Iran agrees to stop the nuclear program, should The US accept such a deal? Is that enough? Joel: The nuclear program is almost 100% destroyed; you wouldn’t negotiate solely on that. If diplomacy exists, it would be to address threats beyond the nuclear issue—ballistic missiles, regional alliances, human rights, etc. The Iranians were willing to accept transparency around their nuclear program in JCPOA-era diplomacy, but the Americans pulled out. If a nuclear deal is possible, it would require mutual concessions; insisting on broader concessions risks collapse. Glenn: The problem is that Iran has legitimate security concerns too. The strategy after the Cold War linking security to global hegemony is problematic. There should be recognition of Iran’s legitimate security needs, not a complete defanging. We should explore a grand bargain—recognize a Palestinian state, get out of Syria, and pursue a path with Iran that reduces the threat without destroying Iran. Mario: There’s a debate about whether the Gulf states see Israel as a bigger threat than Iran now. Joel, what’s your take? Joel: Two countries—Qatar and Turkey—see Israel as an enemy. Turkey’s Erdogan has threatened Jerusalem; Qatar hosts anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda via Al Jazeera and has hosted Hamas leaders. Israel has the right to defend itself and has pursued peace deals with several Arab states, but the region remains dangerous. Israel should avoid destabilizing moves and pursue peace where possible, while recognizing the security challenges it faces. Glenn: Israel’s internal politics and policy flaws exist, but law in Israel provides equal rights to Arab citizens; policy can be improved, but not all claims of apartheid reflect law. Arabs have political rights, though issues with funding and policy remain. The West Bank is a flashpoint; Gaza is controlled by Hamas, complicating Palestinian governance. There’s a broader discussion about whether regime change in Iran is desirable given potential fragmentation and regional instability. Mario: Final question: where is Iran by year’s end? Glenn: If Trump attacks, Iran will perceive an existential threat and may strike back hard, possibly shutting the Strait of Hormuz. Russia and China may intervene to prevent complete destruction of Iran. Joel: I hope Glenn’s scenario doesn’t come true. Iran might pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent. If the regime is weakened, the region’s stability could be jeopardized. The options remain: negotiate, strike, or regime-change—prefer a large but limited strike to deter further advancement without taking ownership of an unknown future. Mario: Thank you both. This was a vigorous, wide-ranging exchange. End of time.

Direct talks with Iran have started and will continue on Saturday with a very big meeting. A deal would be preferable to the alternative, which neither the speaker nor Israel wants to be involved with if avoidable. The situation is becoming dangerous, and the speaker hopes the talks are successful, stating that success would be in Iran's best interest.

CENTCOM reports more than 10,000 U.S. sailors, Marines, and airmen, along with over a dozen warships and dozens of aircraft, are enforcing a blockade of ships entering and leaving Iranian ports. In the first 24 hours, no ships passed the blockade, six merchant vessels turned around and reentered an Iranian port in the Gulf of Oman, while other reports claim two U.S.-sanctioned Iranian ships and another Panamanian ship managed to pass. With mixed accounts of what’s getting through and what’s blocked, the discussion turns to Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, who has been closely tracking the situation. Ritter and the hosts discuss the Strait of Hormuz and what the United States can actually do there. They speculate the U.S. plan is to block at the opening of the strait. Reports of mixed passage capabilities are noted, including a quip about Iranian embassies posting that “you cannot block someone who blocked you,” and the group questions how such blocking would work and whether it could be followed by firepower, given a current ceasefire. Concerns are raised about what would happen if a ship simply proceeds in defiance. The possibility of firing on merchant vessels is framed as piracy, and there’s mention of threats against U.S. ships from Iran. The ceasefire’s remaining duration is noted as only a few days, with online betting markets (Polymarket) showing odd optimism that the conflict could end imminently, which is questioned by the panel. The conversation broadens to regional implications: Lebanon is seen as not halted by the current actions, and Gaza ceasefire violations persist amid ongoing rhetoric and Hezbollah presence. The discussion shifts back to awaiting Ritter’s input. When Ritter appears, he weighs in on whether the blockade can be escalated and what Iran’s response might be. He argues that if the United States wanted to resume pre-ceasefire behavior, it could bomb Iran, absorb Iranian missiles, and endure destruction to U.S. infrastructure, but that is unlikely, as the blockade is “a joke” used for posturing to justify negotiations. He suggests a political off ramp is sought, with a resumption of negotiations likely on Thursday through Pakistan, since the blockade’s effectiveness is limited and other nations have told the United States to “pound sand.” Regarding the blockade’s impact, Ritter notes that most Iranian shipping has already moved out of the trade routes or is skirting the coast, and major actors like China, Russia, and India have signaled they will not be pressured by the blockade. He challenges CENTCOM to show one instance of boarding a Chinese vessel to turn it around, while noting the U.S. Navy would risk being sunk if challenging shipping along Iran’s coastline. He stresses that a blockade is technically an act of war, and the United States would need a new description for its current actions. On nuclear negotiations, Ritter states Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and that there is no evidence of one sustaining past claims; he argues that the 60% enriched uranium is a provocation and explains that Iran’s leadership has claimed enrichment to maintain leverage in negotiations. He recounts past discussions with Iranian officials about limiting enrichment to 3.75% under IAEA supervision, arguing that Iran has the right under the NPT to possess the totality of the nuclear fuel cycle and that a mutual agreement could permanently limit higher enrichment pathways, potentially resolving the issue. He criticizes U.S. and Israeli positions and asserts that Israel’s influence is obstructing a straightforward resolution. The discussion touches on U.S. policy shifts and the idea that Netanyahu’s influence is affecting negotiations. Ritter concludes by reiterating that a realistic off ramp and negotiations are the preferred path, with a termination of the blockade and a resumption of talks anticipated. The hosts thank Ritter for joining and note audience appreciation from viewers who view his insights as truthful.

Speaker 0: And so, I mean, it sounds to me like that that it's leaving Iran with this choice of either rolling over, literally given everything we want, the, you know, the the nuclear enrichment, the the missiles, the proxies, etcetera, And that would buy you a little time, but then leave you utterly powerless. And the next day Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Either Israel or anybody else can come in, you would literally be helpless. And and, I mean, so we're correct me if I'm wrong, but we're offering Iran the option of either lay down and die by death later or stand firm and maybe die shortly now, but at least this way, you're gonna have some missiles to shoot back. I mean, do you see it differently? Speaker 1: No. I think you're exactly right. And, basically, we're we're inviting them to to become Qaddafi. You remember Qaddafi basically gave us a nuclear program. They basically said, fine. You know, I saw what you did in Iraq. I don't wanna end up up like that. I'll meet your terms, and we'll come to an agreement. We'll all be out. And we said, great. Now that you're defenseless, let's destroy you. Stick a bayonet up your rear rear end and shoot you in the head. Now if you're if you're the Iranian leadership, do you wanna end up like that? Look. I've always said the Iranians basically have a choice. They could be North Korea or they can be Libya. Which would you rather be? Speaker 0: That's not a choice for anybody to have to make. Speaker 1: Yeah. But that's that's the position we're putting them in. And frankly, I'm a little surprised they haven't gone for a nuclear breakout up till now. Because if they if they're looking for real security, say, okay. Fine. None no more of this nonsense. We don't wanna be Libya. We're North Korea now. Back off. Yeah. That that would make that would make sense from their point of view, wouldn't it?

The speaker outlines a vision for a post-Islamic Republic Iran, arguing that the Iran people associate with terrorism, extremism, and poverty is a misperception, and that a free Iran will be peaceful, flourishing, and different from the current regime. The speaker asserts that after the fall of the Islamic Republic, Iran’s security and foreign policy will change fundamentally: the nuclear military program will end, support for terrorist groups will cease immediately, and Iran will work with regional and global partners to confront terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and extremist Islamism. Iran will act as a friend and stabilizing force in the region and as a responsible partner in global security. In diplomacy, relations with the United States will be normalized and the friendship with America and its people will be restored. The State of Israel will be recognized immediately. The speaker envisions expanding the Abraham Accords into the Cyrus Accords, bringing together a free Iran, Israel, and the Arab world, framed by mutual recognition, sovereignty, and national interest. In energy, Iran is described as possessing some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world and will become a reliable energy supplier to the free world. Policymaking will be transparent, with Iran’s actions described as responsible and prices as predictable. On governance, Iran will adopt and enforce international standards, confront money laundering, and dismantle organized corruption. Public institutions will answer to the people. In the economy, Iran is portrayed as one of the world’s last great untapped markets, with a educated, modern population and a diaspora connected to the world. A democratic Iran will open its economy to trade, investment, and innovation, and Iran will seek to invest in the world, replacing isolation with opportunity. The speaker emphasizes that this is not an abstract vision but a practical one grounded in national interest, stability, and cooperation, and calls for the international community and the Iranian people to stand with this change. The fall of the Islamic Republic and the establishment of a secular democratic government in Iran are presented as restoring dignity to the Iranian people and benefiting the region and the world. A free Iran is described as a force for peace, prosperity, and partnership.

I spoke yesterday with vice president JD Vance. He called me from his plane on the way back from Washington and reported in detail, as the people of this administration do every day, on the development of the negotiations. The explosion came from the American side, which was not willing to tolerate the blatant violation of the agreement to enter negotiations by Iran. Essentially, the agreement was that there would be a ceasefire and Iran would immediately open the crossings. They didn't do that. The Americans were not willing to accept it. He also conveyed to me that the central issue on the table from the perspective of president Trump and The United States is the removal of all enriched material and ensuring that there is no more enrichment in the coming years, and this could be for decades.

The US could regain trust by immediately removing sanctions on critical Iranian sectors like the medical sector, including chemotherapy drugs and diagnosis machines. Iran would likely request reconnection to the SWIFT payment system. After a deal is signed, there must be full sanctions relief, meaning all US sanctions must be removed. There can't be any more sanctions regimes. If the US reneges again, there have to be snapback clauses for Iranians to renew their nuclear activities. Iran will not give up its legitimate nuclear program, which is overseen by the IAEA and follows its rules. Nuclear nonproliferation is about weapons, not the use of nuclear energy for legitimate reasons.

Stanislav (Speaker 1) and Speaker 0 engage in a wide-ranging, combative analysis of the Iran-Israel-U.S. conflict and broader geopolitical implications. Key points and claims are as follows: - On Iran’s military activity: The volume of Iranian drone and rocket attacks has dropped by about 95% in the last few days, but Iran’s strategic goals appear to be advancing. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and Iran has not fallen from power, suggesting a durable regime in Iran despite reduced attack tempo. Israel is said to be taking a pounding with strikes on Haifa refinery, electrical plants, and other targets, while Iran is pursuing a long-haul campaign rather than a rapid blitz. - Terminology and legitimacy: Stanislav objects to labeling Iran’s leadership as a “regime,” arguing it’s a derogatory term and positing that the regime is a theocracy that is comparatively stable under pressure. He notes that air campaigns have never toppled governments and argues that people rally around governments when their families are being harmed, especially within Shia culture. - Information and truth in war: Both sides are accused of misrepresenting losses and capabilities; the Pentagon’s numbers on drones and rockets are treated with skepticism. There is emphasis on the difficulty of verifying battle damage in real time, and the reality that “the first sacrifice of any war is truth” in war reporting. - Military capabilities and constraints: Stanislav emphasizes that the U.S. and Israel have suffered damage to critical infrastructure, and the U.S. faces munitions shortages. He cites the first six days of conflict as consuming thousands of missiles (3,600 missiles across defensive and offensive systems). He argues U.S. industrial/munitions capacity is strained, with missiles being produced in small quantities and largely by hand, constraining rapid replacement. - Iran’s defense and offense: Iran is portrayed as possessing underground “missile cities” and being able to move and launch missiles from concealed locations. The use of decoy aircraft and other decoys is noted, complicating target acquisition. Iran is described as capable of sustaining a long campaign, with continued missile production and hidden launch capability, including launchers that can be moved and re-deployed quickly. - Sensor/shooter network: The discussion mentions a new U.S.-reported capability described as a “sensor shooter network” that uses satellites to spot a missile launcher as it emerges, relaying coordinates to fighters such as F-35s to intercept before launch. This is framed as making missile launches harder for Iran and easier to strike launchers for Israel and the U.S. - Strait of Hormuz as the central objective: The primary objective for Iran, per Speaker 0, is to close the Strait of Hormuz for as long as possible and disrupt Gulf states, with closing the strait potentially forcing an American exit due to economic pressure. Attacks that target Israel are framed as secondary (“bonus”) relative to the Hormuz objective. - Ground warfare and invasions: Both speakers argue that a U.S. or allied ground invasion of Iran would entail massive casualties and potential domestic political backlash, making it a less likely option. The difficulty of projecting power through Iran’s mountainous terrain and the risk of a popular uprising are highlighted. - Regime durability and external support: Iran’s government is described as a theocracy with deep cultural unity, making political collapse unlikely. Russia and China are discussed as critical backers: Russia provides MiG-29s, SU-35s, S-400s, and jamming capabilities, while China provides satellite connections and political cover, and both nations see Iran as an existential interest—Russia especially, given Central Asia and the Caucasus. Iran is portrayed as having backing from Russia and China that would prevent a wholesale collapse. - U.S. allies and credibility: The U.S. is portrayed as depleting its ability to defend Gulf allies, with discussions of allied air-defense systems being diverted elsewhere (to Israel) and questions about long-term U.S. willingness or capacity to sustain a commitment in the Gulf. - Ukraine comparison and broader geopolitics: The dialogue touches on Ukraine, NATO, and the differential treatment of Ukraine versus Iran, noting perceived manipulation by Western actors and the difficulty of achieving durable peace through negotiations when proxies and local actors have entrenched interests. Zelensky and Kyiv’s internal politics are referenced to illustrate broader critique of Western interventions. - Potential off-ramps and negotiations: There is debate about whether a political settlement could be engineered that would preserve the Iranian regime while offering concessions (e.g., limitations on ballistic missiles or nuclear ambitions) and provide Trump with a way to claim a diplomatic win. Stanislav suggests the unpredictable nature of the current leadership and that an off-ramp may be difficult to secure; Speaker 0 contends that a pragmatic, deal-oriented path could exist if a credible intermediary or concessions are arranged, perhaps involving a different leadership or mediator. - Final reflections on strategy and endurance: Stanislav stresses that drones, missiles, and human ground forces all have limits, and argues that real military victory rarely comes from air campaigns alone; the fundamental test remains whether ground forces can secure and hold territory. Speaker 0 adds that the regime’s resilience in Iran and the long-term strategic calculus—especially regarding Hormuz, energy, and allied alliances—will shape the conflict’s trajectory in the coming weeks. Both acknowledge the enormous complexities and the high stakes for regional and global stability.

Speaker 0 notes that, “if you listen to our leaders, it seems like everything is fine,” with a war “barreling towards a close,” markets “exploding,” and Trump praising the stock market. He says Pam Bondi reminded us about why we can’t have the Epstein files because “the Dow is over 50,000.” He reports Trump said Israel and Lebanon have agreed to begin a ten day ceasefire, starting at 4 PM Eastern, and claims they “haven’t spoken in thirty four years” but now are at a ten day ceasefire, while Israel is carrying out “last minute terrorist attacks, blowing up civilian homes in Inatah, centuries old village in South Lebanon,” and “blowing up a school” in Marwan, South Lebanon. He also says Trump spoke an hour earlier that Iran and the United States are close to an agreement to end this war. He closes with a tongue-in-cheek jab about a “ten days to regroup” from Tony in the chat. Speaker 1 emphasizes the priority: “The big thing we have to do is we have to make sure that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon,” stating that Iran “agreed to that” and that Iran has agreed to give back the nuclear dust “way underground because of the attack we made with the b two bombers.” Tony Garrett in the chat is cited again confirming “ten days to regroup, restock, and reassess.” Speaker 0 then introduces Colonel Daniel Davis as host of Deep Dive, noting a bombshell from his sources and that despite positive rhetoric, military movement suggests otherwise. Speaker 2 asserts that, even without his sources, President Trump was asked if there’s no deal, “we’ll definitely do that,” and that Secretary Hagstads (Hagstad) briefing said, “we are locked and loaded and we are ready to get right back into this.” He says there has been “lots of ammunition and fuel and restocks” moved into the region during the ceasefire to be used, and cautions that “until an order is given, it doesn’t matter what you’ve prepared for,” but that “militarily, all the pieces are in place to restart this thing.” He concludes the pause is a pause to reload, not a true end to hostilities. Speaker 3 asks about ten days’ viability to replenish ammunition, and about a Wall Street Journal report that the Pentagon is pushing Ford and GM to shift factory capacity toward weapons production. Speaker 2 says such conversions are possible (World War II precedent) but would be expensive and time-consuming; more likely, the U.S. “can take them out of our stockpiles” and deplete them, possibly for months or years to replenish, with Iran possibly calculating they can outlast U.S. firepower. He notes the risk that a protracted war could outstrip American stockpiles, whereas Iran could endure longer. Speaker 0 shifts to gold and silver promotions, then returns to the strategic issue, describing that Mossad head’s claim that Iran war ends only with regime change, and Russian intelligence’s counterclaim that the ceasefire is a mask. He asks the chat if the ceasefire is real; Speaker 2 confirms it is real in a technical sense (no missiles fired) but calls it a pause to reload, not a negotiated settlement. Speaker 4 (Secretary of War remarks) says, “Iran can choose a prosperous future…we will maintain this blockade,” and “if Iran chooses poorly, then they will be a blockade and bombs dropping on infrastructure, power, and energy,” while Treasury is launching “Operation economic fury.” Speaker 2 responds that such measures are physically feasible but question their effectiveness in achieving supply and demand balance or restoring fertilizer, helium, and chip supply chains, arguing Iran will endure and that the war is militarily unwinnable. Speaker 2 reiterates concerns about escalating consequences in the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, noting the USS Ford’s voyage around Africa to avoid the Houthis, and arguing continued aggression risks destroying global supply chains, with the war demanding a quick exit. Speaker 0 and Speaker 3 thank Colonel Davis and close.

Iran will receive 5 Iranians in exchange for the release of 5 Americans. The $6 billion addition was necessary to secure this deal. It would be ideal if we could simply ask for the Americans to be sent back, but that's not possible with Iran. Bringing Americans home requires tough decisions, compromise, and negotiations with people we may not want to negotiate with. However, it is important for Americans in trouble overseas and their families to know that this administration will do whatever it takes to bring them home.

Speaker 0 notes that Monday feels distant and references Gulf News in Dubai welcoming US–Iran talks and calling for peace across the region; they acknowledge uncertainty about whether by the time the broadcast airs war may have already begun. Speaker 1 argues that fear is not the dominant motivation behind the current administration’s actions, but there is real fundamental ambiguity and uncertainty about what they are trying to achieve. He mentions strategic ambiguity and strategic inconsistency, suggesting the US administration has done more of the latter. He asks whether President Trump intends to limit Iran’s nuclear program, its missile program, or its support to proxies, or if he is aiming for regime change. He concedes there is some understanding that Trump wants negotiations to center not only on civil nuclear capabilities but also on ballistic missiles, and to some extent on other elements, even if the aims remain unclear. Speaker 0 responds that they do know Trump wants negotiations to center on the nuclear issue beyond civil nuclear concerns, which he implies does not exist as a simple distinction, as well as on ballistic missiles. He references Trump’s stated goals to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons and to address missiles, indicating these were among his latest utterances. He adds that this has been the goal of every US administration, though tactics have changed. He suggests that the US is trying to determine whether to focus on preventing nuclear weapons, missile capabilities, or broader influence, implying that the approach and emphasis have varied. Speaker 1 notes that the consensus, based on statements by others including Secretary of State Rubio, is that the US senses Iran is historically weak and believes it can secure a much better deal. He lists potential components of a stronger deal: no indigenous uranium enrichment, no stockpiles of uranium, and severe limitations on both the range and number of Iranian missiles and on Tehran’s support for proxies. He points out that Israel is seeking the de minimis in this portfolio, and that there is constant communication between Israel and the United States on the Iran portfolio.

Saeed Mohamed Marandi explains that Iranians view current events as an extension of the twelve-day war, where Israel and the Trump administration allegedly collaborated to undermine Iran and failed. He cites US Treasury remarks at Davos about manipulating Iranian currency to provoke protests, which he says led to peaceful demonstrations followed by highly trained groups that caused destruction and police casualties. He asserts that Israel claimed responsibility, with Mossad statements and Channel 14 reporting that weapons brought into Iran caused police deaths, and he notes Western media glossed over these facts. He argues this campaign aimed to push Trump toward confrontation with Iran, while messaging about Iran’s nuclear program and regional alliances shifted over time. Iran’s response, he says, has been that any attack will be treated as all-out war with an overwhelming Iranian retaliation. He contends Trump is boxed in: a larger strike would provoke a massive Iranian response across the region, affecting oil and gas flows through the Persian Gulf and potentially collapsing the global economy. He suggests the “smart” outcome would be to back off and end peacefully, potentially declaring victory without concessions, as Trump did in Yemen, though he believes Iran will not accept any deal that compromises sovereignty or core capabilities. Marandi lays out Iran’s view of the regional and strategic landscape: Iran’s counterstrike would target US interests across the region, not just bases, and would involve allies in Iraq, Yemen, and other areas. He argues the Persian Gulf is highly vulnerable because regional regimes hosting US bases are complicit, and a war would disrupt global energy supplies. He asserts Iran’s capabilities are primarily directed at the United States, given US threats since the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions, and that Iran has strengthened missiles and drones, along with air defenses. He contends Israel is vulnerable, and the aim of some in the US political circle is to sacrifice US interests for Israeli interests. He asserts that Iran’s real objective is to prevent a repeat of the “sword over Iran”—to avoid six-month cycles of provocations—and to end the possibility of ongoing CIA-backed unrest being used as pretext for further strikes. On the possibility of negotiation, Marandi says Iran will not give up nuclear enrichment, missile capabilities, or regional alliances. He notes there was a JCPOA, but Iran would not accept a repeat of that deal; any future agreement would need to be better for Iran. A deal could be discussed about the nuclear program, but not one that cedes sovereignty or enrichment rights. He suggests Trump could try to retreat by declaring victory or offering a hollow concession, but Iran is ready for all-out war if attacked. He emphasizes that if the US backs down, it would be a major defeat for Washington; if it engages in war, it would be a world tragedy and the US would be defeated, with global implications. He argues Iran’s stance is clear: they will respond massively to any attack, and the only viable path for the US would be to walk away and pretend it gained something it did not. Glenn notes that regional allies feel exposed as world power shifts toward multipolarity, and asks about whether Iran would treat this as an existential threat and how it would fight. Marandi responds that Iran views the objective as balkanization, supported by Israeli interests, and that Iran would confront attempts to seize control of the country. He reiterates that Iran will not compromise sovereignty or support for Palestine, and that a conflict would be devastating for the world, with Iran prepared to fight to defend its existence.

Professor Robert Pape warned on X that within ten days parts of the global economy will start running short of critical goods, based on thirty years studying economic sanctions and blockades. He said this would bring not just higher prices but shortages, and that markets are not ready for this. The Kobelisi letter stated the world is experiencing its biggest energy crisis in history with 600,000,000 barrels of lost oil supply, US gas prices up 47% since December, and inflation approaching 4% in a path similar to the 1970s. The discussion then touched on Iran’s war potentially returning to open conflict. The United States seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship, which Larry Johnson described as piracy and an act of war aimed at clearing the Strait of Hormuz; Tehran called it armed piracy and promised a response. JD Vance was headed to Islamabad for talks, though Iranian officials said they had not agreed to anything. Fox’s Tel Aviv correspondent relayed that Trump told him they would blow up everything in Iran if they didn’t come to the table, saying the deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from possessing highly enriched uranium. Professor Pape, director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats at the University of Chicago and author of Escalation Trap on Substack, joined the program. He referenced his April 12 post predicting shortages within forty-five to sixty days and described three stages: Stage one, the first ~45 days with price increases; Stage two (40–60 days) with shortages emerging; Stage three (day 60–90) with worsening shortages and then contraction, beginning around May 31. He explained that shortages would escalate into reduced production of commodities, fewer airline seats, and broader disruptions across supply chains. Pape detailed the implications for air travel and energy: jet fuel shortages could cause European and global aviation reductions, with Europe’s ~110,000,000 monthly air passengers dropping to potentially 80 million or fewer as fuel becomes scarce; cargo, mail, and just-in-time deliveries would be affected, and overall product availability would contract. He argued that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran’s potential shutdown and the U.S. response would complicate efforts to keep that oil flowing. He emphasized that the contraction would begin even as oil access becomes more difficult and other nations (including the U.S.) struggle to secure energy. The conversation then shifted to China. Pape noted that in China, the impact on GDP could be modest (about 1%), but the U.S. could be drawn into a larger conflict that could benefit China. He observed China’s preparation for energy independence: stockpiling oil, relying on solar, nuclear, and coal, and maintaining a robust energy strategy even during tensions with the U.S. He suggested that tariffs and conflicts did not significantly disrupt China’s planning, which could lead to China gaining relative advantage as the U.S. faces a widening energy and economic crisis. There was discussion about the United States’ energy independence. Pape stated he has long advocated energy independence since 2005, but warned that the broader picture involves debt, energy policy, and strategic choices that could threaten American leadership. He stressed the need for a concrete five-year plan to navigate the crisis without harming the economy in the short term and cautioned against escalating war in Iran. In addressing the everyday impact, the speakers considered who would be hardest hit: the poorest, and particularly non-college-educated white working-class voters, who had experienced the largest deterioration in income since 1990. The conversation included proposals to mitigate consumer pain, such as targeted economic measures for working Americans affected by rising gas prices, potentially including tax considerations or subsidies for those whose jobs require fuel, while avoiding broad handouts. Pape reiterated that his Escalation Trap Substack presents a framework based on twenty-one years of modeling the bombing of Iran and indicates that the stages he predicted are unfolding faster than anticipated, with a focus on concrete policy options that could be enacted by May 1. He emphasized that his analysis centers on consequences for ordinary people and urged practical policy steps to address the crisis.

Joe Kent, former director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, explains why he resigned over the war against Iran, arguing Iran posed no imminent threat and that the war was driven by Israeli influence and a regime-change agenda. Key points: - Imminent threat and escalation: In his view, Iran was not on the cusp of attacking the U.S. during Trump’s second term. Iran followed a calculated escalation ladder, stopping proxies during Operation Midnight Hammer and returning to negotiation afterward. After the attack on nuclear sites, Iran retaliated in kind, then returned to talks, indicating a calibrated approach rather than irrational behavior. The “imminent threat” cited by some officials was viewed as primarily tied to Israeli actions against Iran, not Iranian intent to attack the U.S. directly. - Regime-change as miscalculation: Kent contends that regime-change aims in Iran—similar to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya—are flawed. He believes attempts to remove the Iranian regime strengthen it instead, and he personally did not want another costly war in the Middle East. - Israeli influence and the policymaking process: He describes a multilayered Israeli influence network—strong PAC presence, intelligence sharing, and media/think-tank leveraging—that shapes U.S. policy. Israelis push for no enrichment and regime-change outcomes, using media echo chambers and direct access to U.S. decision-makers to steer policy in a direction that aligns with their goals, sometimes at odds with longer-term U.S. interests or what Trump might publicly advocate. - Intelligence versus policy sales: He notes that intelligence briefings can inform or sell a policy. Israeli influence can bypass traditional channels, presenting threats in emotionally resonant terms (e.g., fear of Ayatollahs obtaining a bomb) to push for aggressive stances. This has contributed to a cycle of escalation and military action. - Negotiation space and red lines: The administration’s narrowing of red lines around enrichment (from broader nuclear nonproliferation to zero enrichment) limited potential deal space. The Iranians did show willingness to negotiate on enrichment levels, monitoring, and proxies, but the Israelis and policy ecosystem continually sought broader prohibitions, complicating any potential agreement. - The Iran-Israel dynamic: The Israeli objective appears oriented toward regime change or a state of chaos preventing Iran from leveraging its regional power. Kent argues the U.S. has enabled Israel by subsidizing its defense and offense, creating pressure that constrains U.S. policy and international leverage. - Strategic and regional assessment: The Gulf, Straits of Hormuz, and regional energy security are central. He argues that the U.S. cannot easily open Hormuz militarily in the long term and that any durable arrangement would require restraining Israel, easing sanctions relief for Iran, and returning to a sustainable regional security framework. - Iran’s current strategy: Iran has managed to deter substantial American escalation by threatening to disrupt energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz and by leveraging proxies and regional influence. The leadership has shown discipline in controlling proxies and presenting a credible threat that optimizes Iran’s strategic position. - Great power dynamics: China is seen as a major beneficiary of the current cycle, gaining leverage as global energy transactions shift away from the dollar and as U.S. attention diverts to the Middle East. Russia’s posture is also affected; sanctions and energy markets interact with Iran’s actions, while Russia and China could exploit the distraction and reframe influence in their favor. - Syria and broader war lessons: Kent emphasizes that regime-change in Syria contributed to instability, with various factions and external powers (Turkey, Israel, HTS, Al Qaeda offshoots) complicating the landscape. He remains skeptical about the future stability of Syria, warning that competing external interests could lead to further conflict. - Prospects for de-escalation: A path to de-escalation would require restraining Israel’s offensive actions, offering some sanctions relief to Iran, and engaging in constructive regional diplomacy to reopen Hormuz. He suggests a sustainable deal would avoid large U.S. troop commitments and focus on practical counterterrorism cooperation, stable oil flow, and avoiding regime-change rhetoric. Overall, Kent argues that the Iran war was driven by a dominant Israeli influence, a flawed regime-change impulse, and a diplomacy dynamic that prioritized aggressive measures over practical, balanced engagement. He advocates restraining Israel, pursuing a pragmatic, limited set of objectives with Iran, and reframing U.S. regional strategy to reduce perpetual conflict in the Middle East. He also warns that without de-escalation, the conflict risks drawing the U.S. into a prolonged and costly cycle with broad regional and global repercussions.

The United States will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. An attack on Iran would occur if, during the next ten years, they considered launching an attack on Israel. The U.S. would be able to totally obliterate them. A nuclear-armed Iran is a challenge that cannot be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy, risking a nuclear arms race and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. The United States will do what it must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Ensuring that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power is one of the highest priorities. Iran's key nuclear and nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

Colonel Daniel Davis joins the discussion to address the idea of a forthcoming false flag attack aimed at provoking Iran into a broader war. The conversation threads through claims that key US and Israeli military hardware is in place, Russia has countermeasures ready, and that Israel and a US “deep state” war faction coordinated by the CIA are driving the move. There’s also the assertion that a US carrier strike group is in place for the operation, and that the New York Times reports Trump has received intelligence suggesting Iran’s position is weakening. The host questions the reliability of this intelligence flow, asking who is really transmitting such assessments and whether the CIA or others are shaping Trump’s view. Davis pushes back on the weakening Iran narrative, stating he has followed Iran for years and sees no evidence that Iran is weakening; to the contrary, he notes Iran used a forceful response to suppress a rebellion—an action that, in his view, suggests strength. He references outside voices, including Mossad and Pompeo’s New Year’s Eve tweets, to illustrate how Western narratives have portrayed the protests. He challenges the idea that the protests reveal Iran’s weakness, arguing that the regime’s security apparatus remained in control and that no IRGC defections or regime desertions appeared visible. He warns that if Trump is led to believe Iran is at its weakest point, a more aggressive push could backfire, potentially producing a strong repudiation. The discussion turns to what a “deal” with Iran might entail. The co-panelists note claims that Trump says they can make a deal, while Davis explains that reports indicate any deal would require Iran to remove enriched uranium, cap long-range missiles, change its regional proxy policies, and ban independent uranium enrichment—red lines Iran has repeatedly rejected. The implication is that such terms would, in practice, preclude a peaceful settlement and push toward a military strike. The debate then moves to the military buildup and international reactions. The host asks about possible actions in the next few days, given reports of an Israeli target date around January 30. Davis rejects the notion of a simple, quick conflict, arguing that some Trump administration insiders want a regime-change outcome, whereas he sees limited attainable objectives beyond bombing or destroying infrastructure. He emphasizes the risk of a miscalculation leading to American or Israeli casualties and the potential for a prolonged conflict. He warns there is zero upside to a strike on Iran and a high downside if Iran responds forcefully. Turning to regional dynamics, the panel discusses how Russia, China, and a new Saudi axis might respond. Davis suggests China and Russia would offer logistical support or dual-use equipment rather than direct military aid, preferring to watch the confrontation and preserve their own interests. He also speculates that Beijing and Moscow hope to avoid provoking a broader conflict that could erode their own alliances, while watching Western infighting. A brief, cautioned aside notes Pakistan’s stated red line response to any Israeli nuclear escalation, indicating a potential chain reaction in the region. The panelists acknowledge the risk of escalation but maintain that Israel, if pressured, might pursue a broader conflict with Iran, while noting the uncertainty of Iran’s exact response should a strike occur. The exchange ends with a consensus that the scenario described contains significant risk and complexity, with the overall sentiment that pursuing such a conflict could have catastrophic consequences. Note: Promotional content for ExpressVPN was removed from the summary.

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 welcomed Seyyed Muhammad Marandi, a Tehran University professor and former Iran nuclear negotiator adviser, and asked about the terms of the current ceasefire and why clarity is hard to get. Marandi explained the progression: the U.S. initially demanded unconditional surrender, then shifted to a “15 plan,” which Iran rejected. Iran developed its own plan, with the Supreme National Security Council sending a modified version to the leader, Ayatollah Bahamani, who finalized it and sent it to Pakistan. Trump ostensibly accepted Iran’s framework as the basis for negotiations, though “that doesn’t mean that we’re going to have peace” and there’s little faith in U.S. willingness to concede the 10 points Iran presented. He described the U.S. as an empire whose capitulation is unlikely, given internal and international pressure and the current closure of the Strait of Hormuz. He warned that the U.S. military footprint in the region would be hard to sustain and would face logistical and environmental strain, which could complicate any new war; nonetheless, Iran is preparing for the worst, having previously negotiated with the U.S. twice and seeing both efforts end in renewed conflict. He attributed recent Israeli actions against Lebanon as an effort to derail the ceasefire, noting that Israeli leadership (Netanyahu) appears motivated to induce more violence to gain leverage domestically, while Western media outlets largely abstain from criticizing these actions. Glenn pressed on how to interpret the two-week window for negotiations and whether Lebanon’s inclusion in the ceasefire remains valid. Marandi reiterated skepticism that the full Iran-focused 10-point plan would be accepted by the United States, calling Trump inconsistent and unpredictable. He suggested the two-week period might be extended if negotiations progress modestly, but doubted any comprehensive agreement would be reached given the U.S. tendency to resist rights-based terms and to change positions rapidly. The two discussed the possibility of renewed U.S.-Iran conflict, with Iran continuing to strike at Israeli targets and American assets in the Gulf if necessary. The conversation then moved to the question of who bears responsibility for the broader regional disruption. Marandi argued that Gulf regimes (the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar) are not in a position to fight Iran; without electricity and infrastructure, they would suffer cataclysmic losses. He asserted that the U.S. could not unify the Gulf states in a new campaign and that Iran would control the Strait of Hormuz if attacked. The UAE’s rumored strike on petrochemical facilities was cited as an example of the ongoing broader conflict. He also suggested Lebanon’s fate is tied to whether Israel continues striking Lebanon or shifts its focus back to Iran, and warned that a failure to constrain Israel would undermine any peace talks. Marandi asserted that the ceasefire’s terms could be undermined by the “Epstein class” influence over Western media and governments, arguing that the global media’s support for Israel’s actions betrays a broader humanitarian and democratic legitimacy crisis in the West. He also noted that Oman’s cooperation around Hormuz might be part of a negotiated arrangement, given Oman’s more favorable relationship with Iran and its geographic position on the strait. He stressed that Iran’s apparent victory could reshape global power dynamics, weakening the U.S. and empowering Iran and other Global South actors, with implications for the petrodollar system and regional alignments. Towards the end, Glenn and Marandi touched on the potential long-term regional changes, including borders and governance in the Gulf, and the broader economic and political costs for Gulf monarchies. Marandi attributed the crisis to Zionist influence on U.S. policy and lamented missed opportunities to pursue normal relations with the United States, referencing authors Flint and Leverett and their book Going to Tehran, which he suggested could have altered current events if heeded. He concluded by reiterating that lessons were not learned and that the war’s consequences would be lasting.

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.

According to the president, these people appear more reasonable behind the scenes privately in these conversations than some previous leaders who are now no longer on planet Earth, because they lied to The United States and they strung us along in negotiations; that was unacceptable to the president, which is why many of the previous leaders were killed. This is another historic opportunity for Iran to do the right thing.