reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Mario and Glenn discuss the evolving Iran–U.S. confrontation after Trump’s speech and recent military actions. They explore whether Trump is seeking an off-ramp and how Iran might respond, focusing on strategic leverage around the Strait of Hormuz, escalation dynamics, and regional implications. - Trump’s posture and off-ramp: Mario notes Trump’s speech yesterday seemed like a threat if Iran doesn’t grant an off-ramp, with comments suggesting further precision attacks if peace isn’t achieved quickly. Glenn agrees Trump is signaling for an off-ramp but warns the President lacks obvious military targets to push Iran toward surrender. Both acknowledge Trump’s dual tendency to escalate while also hinting at ending the conflict. - Strait of Hormuz as leverage: The discussion emphasizes that Iran’s ability to control, or at least influence, the Hormuz strait is a key factor in determining the war’s outcome. If Iran maintains dominance over Hormuz, they can set transit conditions, demand concessions, or push for non-dollar trade. The speakers agree that Iran can “hold on to the Strait of Hormuz” to prevent a clean U.S. victory, making it a central bargaining chip. - Historical lens on victory and war termination: Glenn argues that raw military power often doesn’t translate into lasting political victory, citing Vietnam and the Iraq war as examples, and notes Iran views the conflict as existential for legitimate reasons. Trump’s stated goal of “destroying everything of infrastructure and energy” would raise global energy prices and provoke Iranian retaliation against Gulf states, complicating U.S. aims. - Possible outcomes and shifts in posture: They consider multiple scenarios: - If Trump off-ramps, Iran might reciprocate, potentially halting strikes on U.S. bases and negotiating terms around Hormuz. - If the U.S. presses ahead or escalates, Iran could intensify attacks on Gulf states or even Israel, leading to broader regional destabilization. - A mutually acceptable security framework may require the U.S. to reduce its Middle East footprint while Gulf states participate in a collective security arrangement over Hormuz. - Israel’s veto power and potential U.S. decisions: Israel’s security considerations complicate any exit, but the U.S. might act unilaterally if core national security interests are threatened. - Ground troops and regional dynamics: Both acknowledge the ambiguity around ground deployments; Trump’s denial of ground troops conflicts with the impulse to escalate, creating a paradox that makes miscalculations likely. The possibility of renewed ground involvement remains uncertain, with skepticism about sustaining a ground campaign given logistics and supply constraints. - Regional actors and diplomacy: They discuss whether a broader regional rapprochement is possible. Iran’s willingness to negotiate could depend on assurances about its security and status quo changes in the Gulf. Tasnim News reports Iran and Oman are developing a joint maritime protocol for Hormuz in the post-war period, with Iran planning a toll-based framework for tanker traffic, signaling monetization and control even as Hormuz reopens for the world. - NATO, U.S. defense spending, and leadership changes: The conversation touches on geopolitics beyond Iran, noting a forthcoming $1.5 trillion defense budget and a leadership shift at the U.S. Army, with secretary of war P. Hexath ordering the Army chief of staff to retire, signaling a potential reorientation of U.S. military strategy. - Israel–Iran–Gulf triangle: They consider how Iran’s actions could affect Israel and Gulf states, noting that Iran’s retaliation could prompt U.S. or Israeli responses, while Gulf states struggle with the economic and security repercussions of sustained conflict. - Timing and next steps: Mario predicts the war could end soon, driven by off-ramps and Iranian willingness to negotiate, whereas Glenn cautions that the conflict will likely continue given the deep-seated security demands and the strategic importance of Hormuz. Both acknowledge daily developments could shift trajectories, and express cautious optimism that some form of resolution may emerge, though the exact terms remain uncertain. - Final reflections: The discussion closes with reflections on how fragile the current balance is, the possibility of a peace-through-strength stance, and the high stakes for global energy markets, regional stability, and the international order. Mario thanks Glenn for the dialogue, and they sign off.

Mario and Malcolm discuss the evolving drone warfare landscape and the strategic implications for the United States, Iran, Ukraine, and Gulf states. Malcolm argues that Iran’s drone arsenal represents a persistent, low-cost threat with an 88,000 Shahid drone inventory at the lowest cost, and mass production estimated at 7,000. He notes Iran has destroyed roughly $5,000,000,000 of technology, underscoring the waste associated with high-value defenses. He contends the conflict “is gonna come down to rifles and knives and drones,” and suggests the U.S. and its allies have limited tolerance for the level of death this entails. He emphasizes the learning curve for anti-Shahid drones, estimating 35 to 45 days to train someone to fly such drones, and notes that combat veterans and Ukrainian international legionnaires could assist with training in Ukraine, Abu Dhabi, and beyond. They discuss defense markets and training pipelines. Mario recalls speaking with a U.S.-based VC in Ukraine who might be tapped to bolster defense industry interests; Malcolm reiterates that Ukrainian-made, locally developed systems dominate, and that Western companies must avoid partnerships that involve theft of technology. He stresses that Ukrainians own the drone industry, and that the U.S. has historically relied on foreign-made drones for ISR rather than attack, contrasting Ukraine’s trajectory from reconnaissance to drones used for direct attack and artillery fusion. Malcolm criticizes the U.S. approach to drones, arguing that the U.S. military has not adapted to modern drone warfare and that Ukraine’s battlefield experiences demonstrate rapid adaptation and innovating countermeasures, such as drone drop kits and improvised aerial bombs. He explains the progression: drones used for surveillance evolved into attack platforms, counter-drone tactics, and drone-enabled artillery. He provides detailed examples: using DJI drones for reconnaissance early on, then using drone-based bombing, counter-jamming techniques, and fiber-optic lines to guide munitions. He notes Ukrainian Sea Baby Magura drones and unmanned surface vessels (USVs) that attacked Russian ships, and describes a dramatic incident where a Ukrainian drone disabled a Russian submarine tail by docking behind it and flooding it with explosive force. The conversation shifts to recent strikes on Gulf-based assets. Mario asks about Zelensky’s visits to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and why Gulf defense preparedness appeared slow. Malcolm suggests the U.S. misreads regional resilience and that Gulf states will adapt using homegrown drone capabilities, with examples such as Kuwait buying thousands of Ukrainian drones and the UAE potentially building domestic drone factories. He cautions against overreliance on “wonder weapons” and emphasizes practical measures like machine guns, shotguns, and ground-based defenses, noting that 50-caliber weapons and simple tactics can counter Shahid drones if properly deployed. He asserts that the Gulf states will need to supplement their arsenals with practical, scalable training and production rather than expensive foreign capabilities. Malcolm discusses the strategic logic behind any potential concessions with Iran. He argues that Iran has geography, topography, history, and manpower advantages, and that Donald Trump’s threats to bomb Iran’s infrastructure are unlikely to force concessions. He claims Iran would not negotiate under U.S. pressure and that the Strait of Hormuz (SOH) would remain a focal point of conflict. He contends that Trump’s approach risks escalating toward broader conflict, and that Iran could respond by leveraging the Houthis or other regional proxies to disrupt shipping and Gulf economies, potentially closing the Red Sea and Suez Canal if alignments shift. They touch on Russia’s role, noting Moscow’s financial and strategic interests in the region. Malcolm argues Putin benefits from the conflict and that Trump’s priorities are tied to accumulating frozen Russian assets and broader political maneuvering, sometimes at odds with the publicized goal of restraining Iran. He observes that Russia’s drones, weapons components, and intelligence could be flowing to Iran, influencing the Gulf theater. The discussion closes with a broader warning: the war’s consequences will be felt for years or generations, with energy prices, inflation, and global economic disruption, and only a realignment of strategy—embracing distributed defenses, domestic production, and adaptable tactics—will shape outcomes. They acknowledge the difficulty of predicting concessions, the complexity of Gulf politics, and the precarious balance between deterrence and escalation.

Professor Seyyed Muhammad Marandi and Glenn discussed the widening of the war and what Yemen’s entry means for the escalation, as well as how Iran interprets attacks on it and its own targeting. - Yemen’s entry into the war is described as very important. Marandi notes the United States previously waged war on Yemen last year and withdrew, which he says demonstrates Yemen’s significance. With the US engaged against Iran, its ability to focus on Yemen is reduced, giving Yemen more room to maneuver. Iraq’s resistance has been striking US targets and could go further; Yemen’s capabilities have likely grown, and its current targets are limited but could expand to striking Saudi oil facilities or entering the Arabian Peninsula, including potentially closing the Red Sea or striking Israeli and US assets. - He recalls past dynamics of the Yemen conflict, including the seven-yearSaudi-led campaign backed by much of the world, the blockade on Yemen that blocked medicine and food, and Yemen’s eventual leverage via strikes on Saudi oil and gas installations that contributed to a ceasefire. Today, Yemen could “easily take out Saudi oil installations and cut Saudi imports from the Red Sea completely,” and could blockade the Red Sea or strike Israelis or US assets in the Indian Ocean. He asserts Yemen has been developing capabilities swiftly, similar to Iran and Hezbollah, and argues the West consistently underestimates such actors. - The escalation ladder remains high, and if the US or Israel escalates, Iran’s side will escalate too. Global energy, fertilizer, and petrochemical shortages are increasing, intensifying international pressure on Trump and anger toward Israel and Netanyahu. Marandi believes Iran’s escalation dominance is present, although they have not yet demonstrated their maximum capabilities. - He references a book, Going to Tehran, as a contrast to US policy: if the US had chosen a different route a decade ago, the current critical situation might be different. Instead, he says policymakers listened to Zionist influence and a small oligarchy, leading to the current climate of possible catastrophe from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, Iraq, and Iran. - On the US-Israel coordination, Marandi suggests joint operation is likely, pointing to an Israeli strike on the South Pars gas installation as a test that led to Iranian retaliation, and argues President Trump’s stated deadlines to strike Iranian infrastructure were used to manage markets, notably oil prices. He asserts the pattern shows the US delaying or intensifying threats for market control, while Iran retaliates when threatened. - Ground forces and potential deployments: UAE signals strongest engagement among Gulf states, with islands claimed by the UAE that Iran took in 1971. Marandi argues that no Persian Gulf Arab regime is capable of fighting effectively; their role is to provide bases, airspace, and territorial access for the US. Iran, however, has prepared for potential ground operations for decades and believes it could counter any invasion with underground bases and a wide range of weapon systems that go beyond missiles and drones. He posits scenarios where Iraqi forces and Yemen could strike into Kuwait or Northern Saudi Arabia, complicating US options. - Regarding resilience, Marandi emphasizes Yemen’s and Iran’s enduring capacity to resist: Yemen “won the seven-year genocidal war” against the US-backed coalition and is now more prepared; Iran’s resilience is linked to its Islamic and Shia identity, symbols like martyrdom, and a population that remains mobilized despite leadership assassinations and external pressure. He cites public demonstrations in Tehran and widespread civilian backing, as well as ongoing strikes and bombings against Iranian targets, which he says continue to provoke Iranian retaliation rather than deter it. - In terms of outcomes and negotiations, Marandi says Iranian demands will have to be met, though the method is negotiable: reparations could be pursued from regional actors like the Emirates and Saudis rather than the US. Iran would require benefits for its regional allies (Hezbollah, Yemen, Palestinians, Iraqis). He warns that without concessions, further invasion remains a risk, implying that time is not on the side of the West because energy and petrochemical shortages will escalate. He also emphasizes that the real core issue is control over oil, LNG, petrochemicals, and fertilizer, and that the US would face severe economic and social disruption if those supplies are cut off. - The conversation ends with a note of hope that, despite the grim prospects, there is optimism for a better future, even if the days ahead look darker.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor discusses the likelihood and dynamics of a potential new war involving Iran, the Middle East, and broader great-power competition. - On a possible Iran strike: MacGregor says there will be a resumption of the war, though he cannot predict timing. He cites Western attempts to destabilize Iran (Mossad, CIA, MI6-backed unrest) and argues Iran is more cohesive now than it was forty years ago, with demonstrations representing a small minority and not a broad collapse of support for the government. He contends that those who want to destroy Iran or empower Israel believe the regime can be toppled with Western support and Israeli action, but he asserts that such a regime change is unlikely and that Iran will respond forcefully if attacked. He notes that current deployments are heavy on airpower with limited naval presence, and he suggests Israel’s broader goals (Gaza, Lebanon, Syria) will not be achievable without addressing Iran. - Regional actors and incentives: Netanyahu’s regional aims require confronting Iran, and Turkish involvement with the Kurds could influence the balance. He describes a recent Kurdish incursion into northern Iran that Iran suppressed, aided by Turkish coordination. He frames BRICS as militarizing in reaction to Western actions, including in Venezuela, Russia, and Ukraine, and says disrupting the Persian Gulf oil flow would harm China, prompting cooperation with Azerbaijan and Turkey against Iran to undermine the One Belt, One Road project. He also argues that BRICS countries—Russia, China, India—will not easily align with U.S. plans if Washington proceeds toward war. - Russian and Chinese calculations: On Russia and China, MacGregor says they have supplied Iran with military tech and missile/radar capabilities and helped counteract efforts to disrupt Iran with Starlink. He believes many Iranians still oppose regime collapse and that a broader war would risk escalation with Russia and China backing Iran. He cites Moscow’s withdrawal of Russian personnel from Israel and the sense in Moscow that Trump is unreliable, leading Russia to hedge against U.S. actions. He notes Russians are concerned about Europe and envision potential conflicts with Europe, while he questions U.S. strategy and end states. - No first-use and nuclear considerations: MacGregor discusses the idea of no-first-use (NNU) as a potential framework to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation, suggesting a multilateral agreement among the major nuclear powers (US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, Britain, France). He posits that such an agreement could advance diplomacy, including on Korea, and reduce the likelihood of Armageddon. He mentions that Trump could leverage such a stance, though he notes Trump’s tendency to pursue more aggressive policies in other areas. - Europe and NATO: He argues Europe is unprepared for renewed large-scale conflict and has disarmed substantially over decades. He criticizes Britain and France for rhetoric and capability gaps and suggests the United States is fatigued with European demands, though he doubts Europe could sustain a conflict against Russia. - Venezuela and domestic budget: He emphasizes the futility of long wars in certain contexts (Venezuela) and the mismatch between spending and real capability gains. He references the defense budget as largely consumed by fixed costs like veterans’ medical care and pensions, arguing that simply increasing the budget does not guarantee meaningful strategic gains. He notes the role of special operations as valuable but not decisive in major wars. - Concluding view: MacGregor reiterates that war in the region is likely, with many overlapping alarms and uncertainties about timing, leadership decisions, and the risk of escalation. He stresses that both Russia and China have stakes in the outcome and that the Middle East conflict could influence global alignments and deterrence dynamics. He closes by underscoring the potential importance of no-first-use diplomacy and broader nuclear risk reduction as a path forward.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor and Glenn discuss the unfolding Iran war three days in, arguing that the conflict has become a regional war with global economic and strategic reverberations. Key points and allegations: - Iran has targeted at least 27 bases and port facilities across the region, from Kirlik Airbase to Dubai, effectively regionalizing the war. Oil markets anticipate disruption; Europe’s open price rose about 20% on expectations of supply cuts, with a potential rise above $100 per barrel. - In the Gulf, inexpensive drones have breached what appear to be expensive air and missile defenses, affecting airstrips and airports. A large expatriate workforce in the UAE (about 4.6 million Indians and many Europeans and Americans) is stranded, highlighting economic disruption. Oil infrastructure damage is just beginning, with some Saudi refineries struck; more damage anticipated. - The war’s consequences extend beyond Iran and Israel, potentially affecting India, Northeast Asia, Turkey, and Europe. The conflict did not begin with a joint US-Israeli attack; it began with an Israeli attack, with Rubio (Secretary of State-like comment) indicating that Israel started it, which the US later joined due to perceived insufficient posture. - Reports indicate three F-15s were downed; casualties include American sailors and Marines, though the exact numbers are unclear. - The rhetoric from Secretary Hagel (likely Hagerty) and Trump about Iran as a state sponsor tied to Israel is criticized as incautious. MacGregor argues the focus should be on Pakistan and Syria (where remnants of ISIS/Al Qaeda reside), noting Pakistan’s long-standing role as an incubator of radical Islam. He views the war as primarily about Israel’s aim to destroy Iran to enable greater Israeli regional hegemony, with the US fully committed. - He predicts a long regional war and warns that logistics will be decisive: missiles are finite, and the US may exhaust its stock; many missiles used in Ukraine reduce available stock for Iran-related defense. He notes Hypersonic missiles and decoys complicate defense capabilities. - European involvement is uncertain; Britain’s rapid response is unclear, and the broader European willingness to intervene remains doubtful. China and Russia are viewed as potentially pivotal if they decide to intervene; India is suggested as a potential mediator, given cultural ties and BRICS interests. - The US’s strategic credibility and military power are questioned. MacGregor contends the US has shown unreliability, damaging its legitimacy and triggering broader regional and global realignments. He emphasizes that the world is moving toward a new order, with the end of Sykes-Picot-era maps and shifting alliances; Gulf monarchies may seek US withdrawal. - Iran’s resilience is stressed: even if the supreme leader was killed, unity of command remains, and Iran’s dispersed military network complicates US efforts. Iran’s survival could enhance its regional influence; the longer the conflict lasts, the weaker the US and Israel appear, and the stronger Iran, Turkey, and others may become. - The possibility of an escalation to nuclear warfare is raised: if Israel uses a tactical nuclear weapon to stop Iran’s missiles, Russia and China might intervene; this could force a broader confrontation. MacGregor doubts Israel’s ability to sustain a large front and warns this could lead to a strategic pivot by major powers. - On outcomes and endgames: Iran seeks US withdrawal from the region; the US’s presence is likely to be forced out as Gulf states demand it. The interview suggests a collapse of US influence and a reshaping of the Middle East, with Persia re-emerging stronger. Israel’s survival is uncertain; extended fronts and exhaustion are anticipated. - Trump’s role is described as constrained by Netanyahu: Trump is not a free agent, and there is little expectation of near-term strategic change in Washington. The potential for a negotiated end is deemed unlikely so long as Iran remains intact and steadfast. Overall, the conversation frames the conflict as a turning point: a regional war with profound economic and geopolitical ripple effects, signaling the decline of US military hegemony in the Middle East and the possible reconfiguration of global power blocs, with Iran poised to gain relative strength if the conflict persists.

The discussion centers on Israel, Iran, and the United States’ role, focusing on perceived double standards about “foreign agents,” changing U.S. policy under Donald Trump, and concerns about influence inside American politics. Mario and the other speaker open by reacting to news claiming Netanyahu intends to tap pro-Israel Republican lawmakers and media figures such as Mark Levin to help undo progress toward a peace deal with Iran. They argue that Netanyahu’s position is not about nuclear weapons in practice, but about continuing pressure on Iran. The speaker says deterrence and nuclear power mean Israel will not be attacked the way it fears, and that Iran’s role as a regional power has checked aggression. They also claim there is no military option to change Iran’s position, which is presented as part of why Trump signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The conversation then turns to a perceived double standard in U.S. discourse about foreign influence: critics fearmongering about certain countries and allegedly demonizing anyone who is complimentary or fair toward them. The speaker says careers are threatened and people are accused of being foreign agents in one case, while Israel-related foreign influence is treated as normal. They emphasize that if the U.S. treats Russia differently from Israel regarding foreign agents, the same standard should apply to both. They discuss frustration with criticism aimed at people outside the U.S. for caring about democracy and sovereignty, and note that Americans are not portrayed in similar stories to the same extent as prominent pro-Israel media figures. The speaker also argues that foreigners can support Israel verbally without risking lives or bankrolls in the way Americans would. On the war with Iran and the MOU, the speaker says Trump’s shift and signing reflect inability to pursue a military alternative, and that “math is math.” They emphasize that Iran is described as having control over the Strait of Hormuz and that prolonged conflict would worsen economic and material pressures, including a fertilizer crisis, beyond oil and gas. They argue that continuing engagement risks restarting a pointless war, especially given claims that Netanyahu is working to sabotage peace efforts. The speaker highlights Netanyahu’s stated intent to continue offensive actions in Lebanon and questions what the U.S. would do after Iran’s retaliation. Lindsey Graham’s support for the MOU is described as notable, and they debate whether this represents short-term defeat-acknowledgment while planning longer-term sabotage, versus a genuine shift. The speaker says it is difficult to determine directly but claims Israel has exerted pressure on U.S. policy for a long time and suggests the relationship is not based on genuine closeness between Trump and Netanyahu. They state Israel’s acceptance of U.S. support is framed as financially and militarily asymmetrical: the U.S. is described as funding roughly half of Israel’s military and providing major foreign aid, while the speaker claims Israel’s intelligence provided to the U.S. has allegedly pulled the U.S. into wars. A related topic is the potential merger of U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence structures. The speaker calls it “wild,” says it would make it “nearly impossible to get rid of” personnel they describe as Israeli infiltrators, and warns that it could lead to violent domestic upheaval if the trend continues. They also claim Senator Tom Cotton is pushing to merge Mossad and the CIA and call into question whether he is influenced by something like cash. The conversation includes discussion of political outcomes and voter behavior, including a claim that Israel-aligned influence may be “lucky” when fighting happens in primaries because voters are more galvanized and less focused in general elections. They argue that non-voters form a large block, that media division contributes to atomization, and that the system needs change rather than demonizing ordinary citizens. Turning to Israel’s internal perspective, the speaker says Israelis may believe they are entitled to border expansion and claims that U.S. support for decades conditions Israel to think its actions are acceptable. They argue that this makes it harder for Israeli society to undo narratives that justify harming civilians. They reject empathy toward “terrorists,” and claim that when critics label wrongdoing as terrorism, they are accused of anti-Semitism. The transcript discusses Mike Huckabee’s remarks that the U.S. “wouldn’t exist without Israel.” The speaker responds that the U.S. is older than Israel and argues that Israel cannot exist without U.S. support. They also link Huckabee’s stance to evangelical Christian beliefs about Israel’s role in the second coming, stating that those beliefs affect support for the state of Israel. They reference Huckabee’s meeting with Jonathan Pollard (described as a U.S. traitor) and say the White House response was no but there was “no problem,” expressing anger that such actions would not be treated as unacceptable. On whether Trump is under duress, they discuss claims that Trump’s behavior shifted after the 2024 assassination attempt. The speaker says they are not an insider but is influenced by Joe Kent’s claims and says Israel “has the capacity and capability” to carry out assassinations and use blackmail. They continue that Trump’s choices may reflect constraints rather than ideological alignment. Finally, they discuss how much control a U.S. president truly has, describing the deep state, unelected bureaucrats, and agency autonomy as factors that allow decisions to be made without presidential approval, including references to CENTCOM and past claims that “authorization from the U.S.” does not necessarily mean Trump personally authorized actions. The conversation concludes with the speaker expressing hope Trump continues working toward peace, while emphasizing skepticism that the MOU will lead to a lasting peace deal, and warning that U.S. influence structures and institutional autonomy could undermine desired outcomes.

Clayton interviews Professor Morandi about the Iranian military situation amid claims of a US-Israeli aggression and a media blackout. - Morandi asserts the Iranian air force is intact. He says Americans and Israelis bomb decoys and provides examples of footage showing explosions on painted ground objects that do not move afterward, indicating decoys are being used to mislead about real strikes. He states Iran has deployed decoys across the region for planes, helicopters, and missile launchers. The navy’s true strength is described as underground, with bases full of speedboats that fire surface-to-sea and sea-to-surface missiles; these underground bases are reported as intact. The Iranian air force is not heavily used, operating mainly from bases to the east/northeast where access is more limited. Missiles and drones are fired day and night. - Morandi contends that Iran’s naval power for asymmetrical warfare remains intact, and that the enemy’s claims of dwindling launchers or missiles are inaccurate. He notes the initial use of older, cheap missiles to exhaust air defenses, after which Iran fires fewer missiles but still successfully penetrates defenses. - On the strategic Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, Morandi dismisses the idea that capturing Kharg Island would significantly alter outcomes. He argues that even if Kharg Island were taken, the Strait of Hormuz would remain closed unless Iran agrees to reopen it. Iran has long prepared defenses across the Persian Gulf, including naval and shore defenses, anticipating possible US attack. Iran’s missile, drone, and naval capabilities—long-, medium-, and short-range missiles, cruise and ballistic missiles, drones, and speedboats in underground bases—are positioned to deter. - If the US were to open the Strait by attacking, Morandi foresees heavy casualties, destruction of tankers and oil/gas installations, and a collapse of global oil prices, potentially around extreme levels like $250 a barrel, with severe global economic consequences. He argues the United States would lose more than Iran and would need compensation from Gulf regimes hosting US bases for allowing attacks. He asserts that traditional negotiations fail with the US given past breaches of agreements (citing the JCPOA) and implies distrust toward Washington. - Regarding a reported border invasion by Kurds or other groups, Morandi says US collaboration with Kurdish forces would likely be defeated by Iran, who would then threaten the autonomous Kurdish regional government in Northern Iraq. He suggests such actions would harm regional economies and erode Western influence, noting that Gulf states have borne significant economic and political costs from the conflict. He argues the US has harmed its own interests by engaging in war with Iran, increasing oil prices, and pushing regional countries toward confrontation. - Morandi concludes by stating that without genuine assurances on non-aggression and guarantees on future behavior, negotiations with the US are untrustworthy. He emphasizes that the US’s hostility affects not only Iran but the broader regional and global economy, and he criticizes American leadership as acting in concert with the Israeli regime.

John Mearsheimer and Glenn discuss the trajectory of the United States’ foreign policy under Donald Trump, focusing on the shift from an anticipated pivot to Asia and a reduction of “forever wars” to the current Iran confrontation and its global implications. - Initial optimism about Trump: Glenn notes a widespread belief that Trump could break with established narratives, recognize the post–Cold War power distribution, pivot to the Western Hemisphere and East Asia, end the “forever wars,” and move away from Europe and the Middle East. Mearsheimer agrees there was early optimism on Judging Freedom that Trump would reduce militarized policy and possibly shut down the Ukraine–Russia war, unlike other presidents. - Drift into Iran and the current quagmire: The conversation then centers on how Trump’s approach to Iran evolved. Mearsheimer argues Trump often vacillates between claims of victory and deep desperation, and he characterizes Trump’s current stance as demanding “unconditional surrender” from Iran, with a 15-point plan that looks like capitulation. He describes Trump as sometimes declaring a “great victory” and other times recognizing the need for an exit strategy but being unable to find one. - The escalation ladder and strategic danger: A core point is that the United States and its allies initially sought a quick, decisive victory using shock and awe to topple the regime, but the effort has become a protracted war in which Iran holds many cards. Iran can threaten the global economy and Gulf state stability, undermine oil infrastructure, and harm Israel. The lack of a credible exit ramp for Trump, combined with the risk of escalation, creates catastrophic potential for the world economy and energy security. - Economic and strategic leverage for Iran: The discussion emphasizes that Iran can disrupt global markets via the Strait of Hormuz, potentially shut down the Red Sea with Houthis participation, and target Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. The U.S. should maintain oil flow to avoid devastating economic consequences; sanctions on Iran and Russia were strategically relaxed to keep oil moving. The longer the war drags on, the more leverage Iran gains, especially as Trump’s options to harm Iran’s energy sector shrink due to the global economy’s needs. - Exit possibilities and the limits of escalation: Glenn asks how Trump might avoid the iceberg of economic catastrophe. Mearsheimer contends that a deal on Iran’s terms would entail acknowledging Iranian victory and a humiliating US defeat, which is politically challenging—especially given Israeli opposition and the lobby. The Iranians have incentive to string out negotiations, knowing they could extract concessions as time passes and as U.S. desperation grows. - Ground forces and military options: The possibility of a U.S. ground invasion is deemed impractical. Mearsheimer highlights that Desert Storm and the 2003 invasion involved hundreds of thousands of troops; proposed plans for “a few thousand” light infantry would be unable to secure strategic objectives or prevent Iranian counterattacks across the Gulf, Red Sea, and Persian Gulf, with Iran capable of inflicting significant damage on bases and ships. The discussion stresses that even small-scale operations could provoke heavy Iranian defense and strategic backlash. - European and NATO dynamics: The Europeans are portrayed as reluctant to sign onto a risky campaign in support of U.S. objectives, and the episode warns that a broader economic crisis could alter European alignment. The potential breaching of NATO unity and the risk of diminished transatlantic trust are underscored, with Trump’s stance framed as blaming Europeans for strategic failures. - Israel and the lobby: The influence of the Israel lobby and its potential consequences if the war deteriorates are discussed. Mearsheimer notes the danger of rising antisemitism if the war goes catastrophically wrong and Israel’s role in pressuring continued conflict. He also observes that a future shift in U.S. strategy could, in extreme circumstances, diverge from traditional Israeli priorities if the global economy is at stake. - Deep state and decision-making: The final exchange centers on the role of expertise and institutions. Mearsheimer argues that Trump’s distrust of the deep state and reliance on a small circle (Kushner, Whitkoff, Lindsey Graham, media figures) deprived him of necessary strategic deliberation. He contends that a robust deep-state apparatus provides essential expertise for complex wars, offering a counterpoint to Trump’s preferred approach. He contends the deep state was not fully consulted, and that reliance on a limited network contributed to the strategic miscalculations. - Concluding tone: Both acknowledge the grave, uncertain state of affairs and the high risk of escalation and miscalculation. They express a desire for an optimistic resolution but emphasize that the current trajectory is precarious, with signs pointing toward a dangerous escalation that could have wide-ranging geopolitical and economic consequences. They close with a note of concern about the potential for rash actions and the importance of considering responsible exits and credible diplomatic channels.

President Putin spent nearly two hours on the phone with President Trump, delivering a forceful warning that if the United States and Israel restart a war against Iran, there would be “dire, extremely dire” consequences for the region. The show then shifts to the wordplay about Taco Tuesday and a new word: nacho, standing for “not a chance” or “Hormuz opens,” with Axios reporting that Trump rejected Iran’s proposal to open the Strait of Hormuz and that the U.S. has prepared a plan for a short, powerful wave of strikes on Iran. Trump reportedly met with energy CEOs, informing them that the blockade of the Strait could go on for a long time with no end in sight. Trump posted on Truth Social claiming Iran is “in a state of collapse” and that they want the Hormuz Strait opened as they figure out their leadership. The panel notes this may be delusional or not true, referencing a Moon of Alabama post arguing that bombing would not alter Iran’s decision making and that the U.S. has lost its war on Iran, with Iran delivering “the checkmate” by controlling Hormuz. Secretary of War nominee discussions and testimony are recapped, highlighting contradictions: the claim that Iran was destroyed, but that Iran still controls Hormuz, and that Iran was not close to nuclear weapons, yet bombing occurred due to ambitions. Speaker 2’s remarks emphasize that Iran’s nuclear program was said to be “completely obliterated,” but ambitions remained, leaving the situation in a stalemate. The hosts and guests debate what constitutes “winning” in the context of Iran closing Hormuz, with instances of the blockade becoming a reciprocal constraint, and a comparison to “tag” or “double stamp” dynamics. Colonel Daniel Davis and Colonel Douglas McGregor join to unpack the day’s events. Davis notes Putin’s warning implies global implications beyond Iran. He cites fertilizer shortages and rising energy prices, noting the Department of Agriculture’s letter about risks to U.S. farmers, rising bankruptcies, and the potential for a different outcome if war resumes. He questions whether the blockade will produce a different result than prior attempts and points to a potential long-term economic impact. Colonel McGregor adds that Israel’s demands, particularly Netanyahu’s, drive the policy: no more nuclear enrichment, dismantling missiles, and regional coercion, which he argues Iran will not accept. He warns that the U.S. economy hinges on cheap energy and cheap credit, and as energy prices rise, liquidity problems could cascade through private equity and financial markets, potentially resembling or surpassing the 2007-2008 crisis. He posits that Putin’s warning signals fear of global economic consequences and possible coalition formation against U.S. actions, including China and others who could hedge their dependence on energy, and argues that allies in the Gulf face mounting costs and possible strategic realignments. The discussion extends to regional shifts: UAE leaving OPEC, potential breakdown of alliances with the United States and Israel, and fears of broader regional instability. McGregor suggests five of six GCC states are near storage limits, threatening supply flows, and that allied states might ultimately align more with alternative partnerships, such as with China as a safer economic and financial hub. Davis emphasizes the human and civilian toll in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria, noting destructive actions and questioning the moral and strategic justification. The panel concludes with a warning that the blockade could provoke broader escalations, including potential responses from Iran or other regional powers, and that domestic economic pressures could intensify if the situation remains unresolved. The hosts and guests express concern that cooler heads must prevail, acknowledging the serious risks of a wider conflict and global economic collapse.

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.

The transcript centers on a loud, multi-voiced discussion about the prospect of war with Iran, U.S. policy dynamics, and the influence of allied actors—especially Israel—on Washington’s decisions. - The opening segment features sharp, provocative claims about President Trump’s stance toward Iran. One speaker asserts that Trump gave Iran seven days to comply or “we will unleash hell on that country,” including strikes on desalinization plants and energy infrastructure. This is framed as part of a broader, catastrophic escalation in Iran under heavy pressure on Trump to commit U.S. forces to Israel’s war. - Joe Kent, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned from the administration, presents the central prognosis. He warns that Trump will face immense pressure to commit ground troops in Iran, calling such a move a “catastrophic escalation” that would increase bloodshed. Kent urges the public to contact the White House and members of Congress to oppose boots on the ground in Iran, advocating for peaceful resolution and public pressure for peace. - The discussion shifts to Israeli involvement. The panel notes that Israeli media report Israel will not commit ground troops if the U.S. invades Iran, and some assert Israel has never, in any conflict, committed troops to support the U.S. The conversation questions this claim, noting counterpoints from analyst Brandon Weichert that Israel has undermined American forces in certain areas. - The debate then returns to Trump’s diplomacy and strategy. The host asks whether Trump’s stated approach toward Iran—potentially including a peace plan—is credible or “fake news.” Kent responds that Iran will not take diplomacy seriously unless U.S. actions demonstrate credibility, such as restraining Israel. He suggests that a more restrained Israeli posture would signal to Iran that the U.S. is serious about negotiations. - The program examines whether the MAGA movement has shifted on the issue. There is testimony that figures like Mark Levin have advocated for some form of ground action, though Levin reportedly denies calls for large-scale deployment. Kent explains that while he believes certain special operations capabilities exist—units trained to seize enriched uranium—the broader question is whether boots on the ground are necessary or wise. He emphasizes that a successful, limited operation could paradoxically encourage further action by Israel if it appears easy, potentially dragging the U.S. deeper into conflict. - A recurring theme is the perceived dominance of the Israeli lobby over U.S. foreign policy. Several participants contend that Israeli influence drives the war timeline, with Israeli action sometimes undermining U.S. diplomacy. They argue that despite public differences, the United States has not meaningfully restrained Israel, and that Israeli strategic goals could be pushing Washington toward conflict. - The conversation also covers domestic political dynamics and civil liberties. Kent argues that the intelligence community’s influence—infused with foreign policy aims—risks eroding civil liberties, including discussions around domestic terrorism and surveillance. The group notes pushback within the administration and among some members of the intelligence community about surveillance proposals tied to Palantir and broader counterterrorism practices. - Kent addresses questions about the internal decision-making process that led to the Iran policy shift, denying he was offered a central role in any pre-crime or AI-driven surveillance agenda. He acknowledges pushback within the administration against aggressive domestic surveillance measures while noting that the debate over civil liberties remains contentious. - The program touches on broader conspiracy-like theories and questions about whether individuals such as Kent are “controlled opposition” or pawns in a larger plan involving tech elites like Peter Thiel and Palantir. Kent insists his campaign funding was modest and transparent, and he stresses the need for accountability and oversight to prevent misuse of powerful tools. - In closing, the speakers converge on a common refrain: no U.S. boots on the ground in Iran. They stress that the priority should be preventing another ground war, avoiding American casualties, and pressing for diplomacy rather than expansion of hostilities. The show highlights public involvement—urging viewers to contact representatives, stay vigilant about foreign influence, and oppose a march toward war. - Across the exchange, the underlying tension is clear: competing visions of American sovereignty, the balance between counterterrorism and civil liberties, and the extent to which foreign actors (notably Israel) shape U.S. policy toward Iran. The participants repeatedly return to the need for accountability, restraint, and a peaceful path forward, even as they recognize the high stakes and the intense political pressure surrounding any potential intervention.

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.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor discusses the evolving and unclear state of the U.S. war posture in the Persian Gulf, challenging the repeated claim that “we’ve already won.” He notes that each time President Trump makes lines about victory, Iran responds with substantial missile and drone attacks, calling into question whether Tehran’s defeat is real. He says inside sources suggest Iran’s ballistic-missile capability may have been reduced from 100% to around 70%, and their air defenses have been effective against unmanned surveillance aircraft, but Iran “has always been willing to absorb the strikes,” believing the payoff justifies the damage. MacGregor questions why the campaign, which has involved significant air and missile strikes, would move to ground troops when such a shift would require overcoming robust Iranian air defenses, a deep intelligence-surveillance network, and potential shoulder-fired missiles. He argues the administration’s narrative lacks a truthful assessment from the U.S. side and suggests the president is desperate, facing domestic and international humiliation if he admits the truth. He criticizes the unilateral pressure on Iran and the Europeans, noting commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has plunged (15 million barrels of oil a day offline) and Lloyds of London won’t insure ships through the Strait, highlighting how the economic and logistical costs of war already bite far beyond Iran. The host, Glenn, and MacGregor discuss the broader strategic context: Israel’s pressure and neocon aims to remove Iran as a threat, and the possibility that the war’s aftershocks would realign regional power. MacGregor asserts that the war’s sold premise—“short campaign, Iran off the board, Israel safe”—was never credible, and that Gulf Arab states have discovered they cannot rely on the U.S. to guarantee their security indefinitely. He notes the Chinese mediation offer via Pakistan has not been seriously engaged by the U.S., while Russia remains opposed to the Ukrainian war and skeptical about Western aims. He predicts Iran would seek to end Western involvement by moving to a negotiated settlement if possible, but believes the U.S. is not prepared to walk away, given domestic and pro-Israel pressures. On the regional and global implications, MacGregor emphasizes that NATO’s relevance has faded in the post–Cold War era and that European publics are largely indifferent to long-term U.S. troop deployments abroad, especially if they threaten domestic economies. He foresees a possible shift toward a “petro-yuan” backed by gold as an alternative to the dollar, noting China’s gold hoarding and new energy-finance dynamics. He argues the Gulf Emirates have bet on the U.S. staying engaged, but their security dependence is fading as the U.S. signals a potential withdrawal. Regarding Russia and Europe, MacGregor says Russia understands how the U.S. government operates less than Americans do, blaming “Zionist billionaires” and financial capitalists who control much of Western policy. He contends Russia and China will back Iran, and that NATO is effectively finished, having “died on the battlefields of Ukraine.” He suggests Europe must rethink its strategy toward Russia, abandon the weaponization of relationships with Moscow, and foster cooperation with their powerful neighbor rather than treating Russia as an existential threat. In closing, MacGregor contends there are two possible paths: (1) Trump announces unilateral end to U.S. involvement and opens negotiations with Iran, which he believes is unlikely due to the Israel connection; or (2) the U.S. escalates with ground operations in the Gulf, which MacGregor views as impractical given the need to neutralize Iran’s comprehensive strike networks and the terrain of key islands. He predicts the Iranians hold the strategic initiative and that the administration faces a “train to hell” scenario if it pushes forward. The discussion repeatedly returns to the central tension: can Washington disengage and accept settlement, or will it double down in a costly, potentially unsustainable confrontation that reshapes regional and global power dynamics?

Alastair Crook discusses with the host the evolving US strategy toward Iran, the credibility of Iran’s deterrence, the role of Israel and Gulf states, and what is known about Iran’s domestic unrest. - Trump’s strategy toward Iran has shifted. Initially, he sought a big, quick victory with minimal entanglement, including a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June and assistance from Israel to identify a gap to exploit. Crook says Trump hoped for a toppling of the Iranian leadership via a “Maduro-style” operation that could be quickly achieved with outside support. Over time, outcomes did not align with those hopes, and the plan became far more complicated. - The naval armada near Iran was intended as a pressure point but, from the Pentagon’s view, is more of a liability. The armada is loaded with Tomahawk missiles rather than air defense missiles; estimates suggest 300-350 Tomahawks among two destroyers and one carrier. Iran has countermeasures: anti-ship missiles along the coast, submarines (including mini-submarines) with anti-ship missiles, and fast attack craft. Drones threaten the fleet, and the air defense burden would be high if a drone swarm attacked. Hormuz could be shut by Iran in the event of war, a long-term strategic lever that Iran has signaled. - Iran’s deterrence has matured: any attack by Israel or the US could trigger full-scale war and Hormuz closure. Symbolic exchanges were proposed by intermediaries (an empty IRGC building and an attack on a US base), but Iran rejected such symbolic moves, insisting on a broader, sustained response if attacked. - Israel’s posture and constraints: Israel has told the US it does not view the nuclear issue as the sole determinant, but instead urges action to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile system and deter future threats. Netanyahu, meeting with Whitlock, indicated opposition to any nuclear deal if the US does not secure certain Israeli demands, warning that without Israeli endorsement, a US deal would fail. Israel insists on conditions that make a broader deal nonviable for the US. - The Arabs’ restraint: Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, do not want direct involvement in an attack on Iran, including airspace use or refueling. Several factors influence their position: fear of Iranian retaliation, concerns about broader regional instability, and shifts in regional alignments. Saudi Arabia has grown more anti-Israel, viewing Israel as destabilizing and expressing concerns about the region’s security order. There is also a fear that a major war could trigger an Arab Spring-like upheaval in Gulf monarchies. - Iran’s internal unrest: The insurrection in Iran involved trained insurgents (MEK operatives trained by the Americans in Armenia and Kurds trained in Northeastern Syria) and some Baluch participants. Corridors through Turkey and Kurdish groups facilitated their entry into Kermanshah Province. The strategy aimed at creating chaos to provoke a Western intervention, with reports that attackers were paid (roughly $5-$10) to inflame violence, burn buildings, attack ambulances, and kill. The Iranian government reports nearly 3,000 killed during the protests, with about 150 more unidentified; the majority of casualties were security forces due to exchange of fire. The narrative contrasts with outside accounts, noting the opposition did not lead to defections from key state institutions, and Israeli intelligence assessment reportedly concluded the unrest did not threaten the regime’s collapse. - Regional and great-power dynamics: Russia and China have signaled opposition to letting Iran be pressured by the United States, with discussions in Russia about offering a nuclear umbrella or naval support for Iran, though official policies are unclear.Originally planned joint exercises near Hormuz were paused; there are ongoing considerations of Chinese/Russian involvement that would complicate US options. A Chinese-Russian naval presence near Iran could limit US maneuvering. A recent drone shot down by the USS Lincoln reflects continued attempts at signaling and potential negotiation. - Overall assessment: Trump faces a dilemma between projecting strength and avoiding a costly escalation, with Israeli opposition complicating any potential US move. The US cannot easily sustain pressure without risking market turmoil and broad regional and great-power entanglements. The likely trajectory involves continued “negotiations about negotiations” rather than immediate, decisive action, while Iran’s deterrence and regional recalibrations constrain what any use of force might achieve.

John Mearsheimer and Glenn (Speaker 0) discuss the current state of the international system, its shifts since World War II, and the implications for U.S. foreign policy, Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia. - Structural changes since the Cold War: Mearsheimer argues fundamental changes are underway in the international system due to two forces: evolving structural dynamics and the rise and actions of Donald Trump. The Cold War produced a bipolar order with the United States shaping a Western security architecture (NATO, European Community) designed to wage the Cold War. After 1989–1991, the Western order expanded globally during the unipolar moment, with NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and globalization (including China joining the WTO). From 2017, the world has entered a multipolar era with three great powers, and East Asia becomes the United States’ most important region outside the Western Hemisphere, overtaking Europe and the Persian Gulf. - East Asia as a priority: The U.S. pivot to East Asia (explicitly discussed by Clinton and then pursued under Trump) reorients strategic priorities away from Europe in a multipolar world where China is a peer competitor. This shift redefines where the U.S. focuses its resources and attention. - Trump as a destabilizing factor: Trump’s presidency is described as sui generis—a one-man wrecking ball that amplified unilateralism and contempt for international law, institutions, and allies. After initial containment of China in his first term, Trump’s policies intensified a unilateral approach. The Iran war decision (February 28) is presented as a catastrophic misstep that worsened U.S. positions globally and risked destabilizing the region further. - Three major strands of American policy causing trouble: NATO expansion, the global war on terror, and the Iran war. NATO expanded eastward in the 1990s and 2000s, culminating in Ukraine’s entry in 2022, aggravating Russia and complicating U.S.–Russia relations and European security. The global war on terror led to Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts and other interventions (Libya), generating domestic fatigue and a populist backlash that helped propel Trump. The February 28 Iran invasion created a broader, more consequential set of regional and global ramifications, with China, Russia, and Europe pressuring limits on U.S. actions. - The Iran war: Mearsheimer stresses that Iran presents a more dangerous theater than Iraq because the stakes are higher globally, with potential for a worldwide depression and cascading economic impacts, particularly in Asia. He outlines three options for ending or de-escalating the Iran conflict: (1) maintain the status quo with ongoing blockades; (2) blockade plus bombing, which risks catastrophic economic damage and Iranian retaliation; (3) cut a deal with Iran, which would be politically difficult in Washington given Israeli influence and the desire to avoid conceding that Iran “wins.” He asserts that the blockade alone won’t force surrender, bombing would escalate risk and deplete U.S. military capacity, and the only viable path is a negotiated settlement, though domestic and allied opposition makes this hard. - Israel–Iran–U.S. dynamics: The relationship between the United States and Israel creates a “tag team” dynamic, with Israel viewing Iran as an existential threat. If Iran preserves its nuclear enrichment capability, it could push Israel toward considering nuclear options, which raises the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Trump’s rhetoric has even hinted at extreme objectives against Iran, complicating efforts to reach a deal. Mearsheimer emphasizes the influential role of the Israeli lobby in U.S. policy and notes the broader risk of nuclear escalation in the region. - Ukraine and nuclear deterrence: The Ukraine war has surprised many by showing Ukraine’s ability to threaten Russian strategic forces with Western support, which underscores Karaganov’s point about Europeans underestimating the nuclear dimension of security and deterrence. Mearsheimer highlights that the current era features a complex web of regional and great-power interdependencies—Russia, China, Iran, and European security architectures are all interlinked, affecting and being affected by one another. - Conclusion and outlook: The discussion emphasizes that managing security competition, rather than relying solely on military solutions, is essential. The speakers warn that the contemporary shift toward multipolarity and the interwoven regional dynamics heighten the risk of escalation and miscalculation, making prudent diplomacy and restraint crucial to avoiding a broader catastrophe. They acknowledge the difficulty of achieving lasting peace in the Middle East given domestic political constraints and the powerful influence of regional actors, but stress the necessity of recognizing the geopolitical realities of a world in which power is distributed more unevenly than in the Cold War.

President Trump tells reporters in the White House that he has called off strikes against Iran because a deal is close, with multiple parties involved and the agreement potentially finalized within the next two to three days. Speaker 2 compares this to a repeating pattern attributed to Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu since February 28: declarations of victory, claims that the other side is begging to surrender, orders to announce an imminent deal, bombing again, and repetition. Speaker 2 says the cycle has happened “over 38 times,” arguing that a weekend bombing follows the claim of an imminent deal. Glenn Greenwald is referenced as having posted that the same pattern repeats weekly. Speaker 2 connects the discussion to earlier commentary by Tucker Carlson about Trump’s alleged dealmaking, then shifts to claims about sovereignty. In Speaker 1’s monologue, the United States is described as lacking sovereignty in decisions that “change the course of history,” with the war in Iran said to be decided by the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than the president of the United States. Speaker 1 argues that this challenges the premise that people control outcomes through voting, claiming that on major questions elected officials are not in charge. Speaker 2 asks who is driving any potential peace agreement, stating that Iran has said there is no agreement and that Speaker 2 calls that claim a “total lie,” adding that negotiations had not yet involved speaking with Iran. Speaker 2 brings in Colonel Douglas McGregor to interpret Trump’s statements alongside reports of overnight attacks involving Gulf states, U.S. infrastructure, U.S. bases, and F-35s, with deaths inside Iran. Colonel McGregor says he asked someone in Wall Street what was going on and was told “there’s no truth” to the deal claims. He frames Trump’s behavior as persuasive like Bernie Madoff, saying Trump creates “the illusion of control.” McGregor describes possible outcomes: leaving and pretending nothing happened (described as unlikely), leaving without acting with Israel (said to risk Israeli use of a nuclear weapon), freezing everything into a prolonged “hot-cold war,” and continued escalation he believes Trump cannot control fully. Speaker 0 shifts to consequences, saying the stock market can respond to illusions, that continuous threats to kill people as national policy damage the psyche, and that there should be consequences for the repeated pattern. McGregor also argues that Gulf states are seeking security arrangements beyond the U.S., referencing Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and saying Arab states and the Arabian Peninsula are discussing security with Russia because the U.S. cannot protect what it promised. He suggests this marks the start of an end to what he calls the “American military empire,” with Koreans, Japanese, Persian Gulf states, and Europeans possibly asking the U.S. to leave. Speaker 2 reports “from insider sources” that Iran denies a deal Trump is bragging about, including the “new Ayatollah,” and claims negotiating teams are frustrated because Trump and his team allegedly sabotage negotiations by preemptively announcing “bullshit” online. Speaker 2 calls the situation “total theater.” McGregor explains constraints he believes apply to Trump regarding Israel: he says Israel would not stop attacking without destruction of Iran, while Trump would not want an agreement that prevents him from declaring victory. He warns that if Israel becomes a rogue actor, other states could seek nuclear access for protection. Speaker 0 mentions a morning claim about taking “Karg Island” and other oil infrastructure in a way he associates with Venezuela, then asks whether it is bluster and whether such action is feasible. McGregor responds that taking the island would involve “terrible risks,” questions what would be done with it afterward, and argues Iranians have more routes for oil than cargo islands. He adds that destroying facilities could affect China, Japan, and others with strategic petroleum reserves, while the U.S. reserve is said to be dropping. Speaker 2 asks what happens next and questions U.S. Central Command posts about the Strait of Hormuz remaining open while reports say commercial shipping is severely restricted. McGregor says the “open” message conflicts with reality, describes possible queuing and payment-for-priority claims in the Gulf, and says oil is being moved because Iran permits it, whether through regulation or bribery. He emphasizes that Trump would not admit limited control, warning against blockading indefinitely and against a prolonged shadow war involving troops facing ballistic missiles and armed drones. In closing, McGregor says he worries that resuming attacks could produce more losses, including credibility and prestige with the world, and that intervening in the Gulf with air mobile infantry would be a “disaster waiting to happen.” He says he cannot answer whether Americans have suffered unrevealed base losses but believes more losses are likely if attacks continue.

The transcript contrasts statements from the United States/White House side and Iranian officials about whether a deal is imminent. The United States side says a deal is “two days away,” while Iranian officials say that is “not true at all,” claiming there has been no discussion and that there was “no deal.” The speaker says there were “two deals.” The first followed a “thirty-nine day war.” This began with Trump saying “unconditional surrender, lay down your arms,” and ended with Trump accepting Iran’s “ten point proposal” as the framework for negotiations, which “didn’t go well for Trump.” After thirty-nine days, a ceasefire was agreed upon, including an element to end “the genocidal attacks on Lebanon.” Trump allegedly agreed to this, but the transcript claims Netanyahu “carpet-bombed the country in order to wreck the ceasefire,” and that instead of Trump forcing Netanyahu to abide by the ceasefire, he “sided with Netanyahu,” resulting in the ceasefire being wrecked. The speaker then says Trump imposed a “siege on Iranian ports,” described as “an act of war” and “another violation of the ceasefire.” The speaker attributes the failure to both Trump and Netanyahu. The second “agreement” is described as still being “floated.” The transcript says a general framework was agreed upon, but the details contain “gaps,” and there is “right now… no progress.” It outlines elements the speaker says were more or less agreed: - The US would lift sanctions on Iranian energy exports for the duration of the agreement (an MOU), while Iran would receive part of its assets “stolen over the years by the United States.” - The war in Lebanon would end, including “the genocide in Gaza” stopping. - The lifting of the siege on Iranian ports would be exchanged for Iran normalizing ship movement through the Strait of Hormuz. - Iran would declare it will “not pursue nuclear weapons,” which Iran has been saying it will not do for years. The transcript says the agreement was “close” but that “the details were never sorted out.” It further claims Trump repeatedly said he would not return Iranian assets, remove sanctions, or lift the siege. The speaker states that this “runs against written statements by his own negotiators,” and concludes that “the only person who’s the deal breaker is Trump,” suggesting he is pressured not to have the deal by Netanyahu and “the Zionist lobby.” It argues US interests favor “normalization of global trade” and energy flowing out of the Strait of Hormuz, while “Israeli regime interests” are described as continuing war and hostilities to “wreck the global economy and… the US economy,” with the transcript claiming Netanyahu and the “Zionists” have “the upper hand.”

Chas Freeman and the interviewer discuss a rapidly unraveling international order and rising tensions in the Gulf, with implications for Europe, Asia, and global security. - Freeman argues that the five-century European domination of the world is over, Pax Americana is dead, NATO is moribund, and the Atlantic alliance is failing. He claims Europe views NATO as a defensive alliance but sees neither role NATO purportedly serves, and notes European countries (Spain, France, Austria) restricting U.S. access to bases and airspace in relation to Iran actions. - He describes a rearranged Gulf regional order being shaped by war, with Iran’s position strengthened. He highlights Donald Trump’s rhetoric as decoupling the U.S. from guaranteeing passage through the Strait of Hormuz, pointing out that the Strait cannot be opened by force, and that other actors must negotiate to ensure their energy exports remain routable. Freeman notes Macron’s similar view and explains that the solution would be an agreement with Iran, accompanied by IRGC verification and a signaling code for safe passage. - Freeman identifies Iran gaining two outcomes: the end of oil sanctions due to global price concerns and the acquiescence of the world to its de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz. He asserts Gulf Arab states have little choice but to negotiate with Iran, and that other regional players (China, India, Japan, Turkey, perhaps Bangladesh) are already anticipating this, with a Korean vessel reportedly passing through after negotiating with Iran. - He observes the geopolitical rearrangement: Pakistan is favored by China as a mediator, offering extended deterrence to Saudi Arabia; Pakistan’s strong Shia population and cultural ties to Iran put it in a pivotal role. Israel’s and the U.S.’s disinformation campaigns in the Gulf are noted, as are attacks on desalination plants and the vulnerability of Gulf states that harbor U.S. bases. Oman is highlighted as the only Gulf state anchoring U.S. naval presence and maintaining relative peace with Iran. - Freeman also points to the broader shift in regional security arrangements: a move away from dependence on Western military technology, with the Pakistan-Turkey-Egypt-Saudi alignment seeking more autonomy and potential Chinese participation in security architectures. He highlights the five-nillar meeting in Islamabad and a joint statement with Wang Yi outlining principles for Gulf security, suggesting a tilt toward regional solutions. - He notes the European Union’s sluggish diplomacy and lack of appetite for active diplomacy, contrasting Macron’s call for Europe to shape the world with reality. He argues that proxy wars are fading as the U.S. exits Ukraine as a proxy battleground, and Europe cannot rely on American arms in the same way, given stock replenishment needs and Israeli priority. - Freeman discusses nuclear proliferation concerns: Iran’s potential push toward nuclear weapons, and possible regional moves by Saudis, Turks, Egyptians, and others toward their own nuclear capabilities, including Japan’s latent capabilities and the broader fear of a chain reaction of nuclearization across regions, including Europe and Latin America (Brazil and South Africa’s defense agreements). He suggests Europe might need a more vigorous self-defense posture and a rethinking of security architecture beyond a Russia-centric framework. - He emphasizes the difficulty of achieving diplomacy amid eroding trust, noting that Western leaders lack imagination and that the UN and NATO's relevance has weakened. He envisions a Eurasian security framework that includes China, Japan, and Korea, moving toward a pan-Eurasian approach rather than block-based security. - On how the current war might end, Freeman argues that the conflict is unlikely to end at the negotiating table; instead, Iran is expected to continue pressuring Israel, and the conflict could persist as Iran maintains its missile and deterrence capabilities. He suggests the end is likely to come on the battlefield with Iran achieving objectives, while Western and regional actors may fail to secure a lasting stabilization. He concludes with a wary note on leadership and responsibility, lamenting the absence of statesmen capable of forging a new security architecture. - The discussion closes with a blunt observation about leadership, the unpredictability of Trump, and the uncertain future of American involvement in West Asia, leaving open questions about how or when the current war might actually end.

Colonel Douglas MacGregor and Glenn discuss the current strategic picture across Ukraine, the Russia–China–Iran axis, and the broader Western political environment. On Russia and Ukraine: - MacGregor notes a major “Cauldron battles” situation in Southeastern Ukraine, with remaining Ukrainian forces being encircled and largely annihilated by precision strike weapons, and a Russian swarm anticipated to complete the encirclement. - He identifies two focal points of Russian activity: Odessa (where Russian special operations are reportedly active at night, Odessa largely undefended with air defenses degraded) and Kharkov, with ongoing pressure toward Kyiv. He emphasizes that none of these alone solves the core problem of removing Zelenskyy’s government in Kyiv, which he describes as a facade Europeans seek to preserve. - Russia has increased its force size, adding reservists and training new draftees; options for Moscow appear to be Odessa, Kharkov, and Kyiv. Putin is watching Western European political developments to gauge timing, potentially waiting for Western government changes to move decisively. - MacGregor argues NATO is effectively irrelevant to Russia’s calculus and asserts the United States does not want a war with Russia over Ukraine, giving Moscow more freedom of action than Western audiences realize. On Russia–China relations and Europe: - Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are pursuing a bilateral strategy to mutually reinforce military and economic capabilities, forming a large continental fortress against the United States. The two powers seek to strengthen ties as they view the U.S. as increasingly belligerent. - MacGregor contends that European leaders, including Starmer, Macron, and Metz, are aligned with globalist and financial elites (referencing ties to BlackRock and others) and that personal relationships between leaders are not meaningful in the international arena; strategic interests drive policy. - He argues that many European elites’ rhetoric about Russia serves to deflect from domestic vulnerabilities and to mobilize anti-Russian sentiment as political cover. On the Middle East and Iran: - The talk about Iran is framed as not serious; MacGregor describes a plan to escalate toward regime change in Iran, driven by U.S., Israeli, and allied intelligence communities, despite Iranian resistance and regional risk. - He claims Mossad, MI6, and CIA influenced President Trump regarding Iran’s fragility, while Iran’s internal protests (economic grievances) were legitimate and quickly mischaracterized as attempts to overthrow the government. He asserts Chinese and Russian assistance helped Iran counter covert efforts, including providing satellite imagery and assisting integrated air and missile defenses. - The declared Western goal is to destroy Iran as a nation-state, with the Iranian leadership prepared to respond with full use of capabilities if attacked. He suggests a potential air and missile campaign could target the regime and strategic hubs, with the United States likely relying on high-altitude precision strikes and long-range missiles, while questioning the effectiveness and survivability of U.S. platforms like B-52s against Iranian defenses. - China and Russia are depicted as unlikely to allow Iran to be pulverized; they could intervene if Iran is near disintegration, possibly through non-nuclear actions such as a collision at sea, leveraging their submarine capabilities and influence. On European political legitimacy and future: - MacGregor connects the Epstein-related discourse in Europe to a broader critique of ruling elites, comparing the potential for political upheaval to late-18th-century France. He argues that as publics grow disillusioned with elites, there could be a crisis of political legitimacy and a shift toward more realistic leadership, with potential upheaval in Britain, France, and Germany. On Putin and future moves: - He suggests Putin views the possibility of reconciliation with Washington as unlikely, having reached somber conclusions about the prospects for meaningful agreement. He predicts Russia will act on its terms, potentially advancing toward the Dnieper River, Odessa, and perhaps Kyiv, while noting Russia does not intend to govern Western Ukraine long-term. He emphasizes that events will unfold on Russian terms, with European irrelevance in the decision-making process fading as Moscow executes its plans.

In the dialogue, Seyyed Mohammed Marandi, a Tehran University professor and former Iran nuclear negotiation adviser, discusses the prospect of renewed U.S. aggression against Iran and the stability of any ceasefire. He says that since the ceasefire began, preparations for war in Tehran have been ongoing “twenty four hours a day,” driven by the belief that Trump will not accept defeat and that the “Zionist lobbying” and the Israeli regime remain behind the war. He suggests that although it is not certain, a new round of conflict could erupt over a weekend or soon after markets close, noting that the U.S. and Netanyahu’s positions previously clashed with ceasefire terms. He recounts that Iran had insisted on an off-ramp when Netanyahu accepted the ceasefire, but Trump then claimed the Strait of Hormuz would remain open while maintaining a siege on Iranian ports, implying that an off-ramp was possible but not pursued. Marandi emphasizes that the Strait of Hormuz was never closed by Iran, except to ships linked to adversaries, and argues that the escalation followed Netanyahu’s actions despite Iranian signals. He asserts that even if a limited agreement allows more ships through, the broader pain from any renewed conflict will persist, potentially causing a global economic depression if critical infrastructure is destroyed or if negotiations on Hormuz or Gaza/ Lebanon ceasefires are delayed for weeks due to fighting. On the U.S. side, the host notes that the U.S. was in trouble and desperate, pointing to missile defenses and ammunition shortages as signs of strain, and remarks that Trump accepted Iran’s 10-point plan as a ceasefire framework but later abandoned it, while presenting an extended ceasefire as a favor. Marandi agrees that Trump’s actions have been inconsistent and that the Iranians might expect the U.S. to pursue assassinations and infrastructure strikes again, with Iran prepared to retaliate robustly. A key point is Iran’s stated willingness to escalate in response to attacks on its leadership and critical infrastructure. An Iranian MP, associated with the Islamabad delegation, reportedly warned that if any assassinations occur, Iran will target leaders of Arab regimes in the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Bahrain, the Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) because they are complicit in the war. The discussion outlines that Iran would retaliate not only against Israeli targets but also within the Persian Gulf region, potentially striking infrastructure and power facilities, with implications for the region’s electricity and climate conditions during the hot season. Marandi argues that Iran has already demonstrated strategic restraint, saying that Iranian authorities aim to minimize civilian casualties and that Iranians would respond to attacks on critical Iranian infrastructure by striking broader targets in the Israeli regime and in regional partners. He contends that Iran does not initiate escalation but escalates in response, pointing to past cycles where Iran’s retaliation was effective without targeting civilians. He notes that Iran has assets across its mountainous interior, including deep underground factories and bases, which he claims the United States underestimates, leading to miscalculations about Iran’s missile and drone capabilities. Regarding the broader geopolitical landscape, Marandi notes rising Western and Israeli concerns about Iran’s expanding influence, while acknowledging growing sympathy for Iran in parts of the world, including some shifts in India and Latin America. He highlights the Putin-Trump dynamic, suggesting Putin’s meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister and Russia’s praise for the Iranian people signal a strengthening axis of resistance against Western pressures. He also remarks that Iran’s resilience under sanctions and its ability to mobilize regional allies, such as Hezbollah, complicates Western expectations of quick regime change. Finally, Marandi suggests that Iran’s role on the global stage is shifting perceptions of Iran’s strength and legitimacy, and he foresees continued pressure, potential escalation, and a regional balance of power that narrows Western maneuvering space as the crisis evolves.

The conversation centers on Iran, potential U.S. action, and the wider strategic spillovers across the Middle East and beyond. The speakers discuss what prompted a delay in striking Iran, the likelihood of a broader attack, and how regional and great-power dynamics might unfold. - On why a strike against Iran was postponed, the consensus from the guest is that Netanyahu asked for more time to prepare for defending against Iranian missiles and to enable a larger attack footprint. The guest also cites public statements by U.S. figures supporting a bigger operation: Lindsey Graham emphatically said last Friday that the delay was so we can go bigger; General Jack Keane stated that military operations would target political and military leaders and destroy their military infrastructure to take the regime out. The guest emphasizes that the most likely scenario is an expanded target set and greater combat power in the region to defend bases and improve the attack’s effectiveness, rather than a symbolic strike. - Regarding whether Russia or China would become involved, the guest doubts active involvement by either country, but suggests indirect support or intelligence help could occur. The logic is that direct involvement would be costly for these powers, though they might assist Iran indirectly. - On the readiness and capability of Iran, the guest argues Iran is now far more prepared than in the twelve-day war. They note that insiders were purged after the prior conflict, defenses were strengthened, and missile production likely accelerated since June, with production areas shielded from prior attacks. Iran’s ability to respond quickly and with significant damage is viewed as higher, and the guest warns that if Iran experiences an existential threat, it could abandon restraint and retaliate in a way that makes a broader war more likely. - The discussion covers U.S. bases in the region, where the guest concedes that the U.S. air defense is not at the level of Israel’s Iron Dome and David Sling, THAAD, and other integrated systems. Some bases lack robust defense against ballistic missiles, drones, and other threats, and, while 30,000 U.S. troops remain in the area, the overall air-defense capability is described as insufficient to stop all Iranian missiles. - Would Iran strike Gulf nations directly to pressure them to push the U.S. to end the war? The guest says not likely, arguing that Iranian leadership has signaled a preference for good relations with Gulf states and that attacking Gulf bases or cities would create more enemies and complicate Iran’s strategic posture. - A decapitation strike targeting leadership is considered plausible by some but deemed risky. The guest notes Iran has continuity of government plans and could designate successors; even if leadership is removed, a power vacuum could ignite internal fighting. The possibility of an existential attack by Iran—coupled with a broader regional war—could be catastrophic and is something to avoid. - The discussion turns to Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and the broader spillover risk. The guest suggests that if Iran’s retaliation is strong and Hamas or Hezbollah see an opportunity, there could be escalations, including potential involvement by Turkey. However, Iran would likely avoid opening new fronts that would diffuse its capability to strike U.S. bases in the region. - The problem of Iran’s internal diversity is highlighted: Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Lurs, Arabs, Baluchs, and Turkmen, among others, complicate any post-regime-change scenario. The guest argues Iran could fragment, but emphasizes that a successful Western-backed regime change could still lead to civil strife rather than a stable replacement, warning of a “textbook failed regime change” akin to past Middle East interventions. - On NATO and Western unity, the guest asserts NATO is dead or in deep trouble, citing European leaders who doubt U.S. stability and reliability. He notes European politicians discuss building an autonomous European security architecture, implying growing European reluctance to rely on U.S. leadership for defense. - Greenland as a strategic issue: the guest argues there is no rational military need for Greenland for security, and that the notion of occupying or militarizing Greenland is driven more by Trump’s personal preferences than strategic necessity. He points out that even if Greenland were militarized, Russia and China would have little to gain, given logistical and strategic barriers. - Finally, the future trajectory: the guest predicts Iran will likely be pressed hard in a large strike but warns that the consequences could be severe, including regional destabilization, potential civil conflict inside Iran, and long-term strategic costs for the U.S. and its European partners. He suggests that as long as the U.S. overextends itself in multiple theaters (Iran, Greenland, Ukraine, Venezuela), global stability and the U.S. economic footing could be endangered. The guest closes by highlighting the uncertainty of Trump’s next moves, citing possible abrupt shifts and cognitive concerns that could influence decisions in unpredictable ways.

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.

In this discussion, Colonel Douglas MacGregor argues that the Islamabad peace talks were likely a fabrication and that Iran showed no real interest in negotiating. He asserts there was no evidence of Iranian intent to negotiate in the last talks, and notes that Vice President Harris’s momentary outside call during a meeting suggested to him that Netanyahu, not Trump, was effectively in charge of decisions affecting the conflict. He claims the White House comments about a possible ceasefire or talks are “nonsense” or designed to calm markets, and predicts the Iranian ceasefire deadline (3 AM Iranian time) would not yield a negotiated halt to hostilities. He says Iran is preparing for renewed attacks and for the possibility of a quicker American strike. MacGregor frames the conflict in strategic terms, contrasting American offensive power with Iran’s defense-focused posture. He describes the United States as a power that “banks on the offense, the ability to attack beyond its normal limits,” while Iran operates from within its borders with substantial underground storage and a defense-oriented program. He emphasizes Iran’s capability to wage a long-range, dispersed defense and to strike from 500 to 1,000 miles beyond its borders, complicating sustained air and naval operations. He believes the opening phase of any renewed U.S. campaign will be “far more intense”—more sorties, missiles, and bombings aimed at targets that could influence the outcome, focusing on infrastructure to degrade the Iranian state rather than merely military targets. Regarding resources, MacGregor estimates the Iranians have substantial unmanned systems (perhaps 45–50,000) and missiles (15–20,000, possibly more) with ongoing underground production capacity, aided by external resupply from China and Russia. He suggests the United States may have replenished some missile stocks, including air-to-surface missiles and anti-missile stocks, but questions the current readiness of destroyed radars and other critical C4ISR assets. He anticipates greater use of carpet bombing and destruction of critical infrastructure (bridges, power plants, desalination and oil infrastructure), describing this as an effort to destroy the state. On ground forces, he notes reports that President Trump has been reluctant to use them and expresses skepticism about their usefulness in the Gulf, given supply and medical evacuation challenges. He mentions potential but limited appetite for ground operations by Special Operations forces and the Army/Marines. MacGregor discusses global repercussions, warning that Iranian destruction could trigger famine due to Gulf-region fertilizer supply chains, rising fuel prices, and energy insecurity worldwide. He claims Europe is already facing energy crises and political upheaval, predicting governments will be overthrown as they confront shortages and the realities of energy dependency, and asserts the petrodollar system is dead or in decline, with China potentially stepping in as a financial hub. He argues that the multipolar shift will constrain U.S. power and that Europe should re-engage with Moscow, possibly under a new arrangement akin to a Manchurian-style convention to manage straits and regional influence. In the European and Asian context, he says NATO is finished and warns that Western media have misrepresented Russia’s intentions, instead blaming Western leaders for the escalation. He criticizes Western support for Ukraine, arguing that Ukrainian actions have been complicit in wider war costs, and he contends the broader goal of Israel’s regional plans has driven U.S. policy toward Iran. He predicts open revolutions or political turnover in Western Europe, calls for Europe to move away from wind/solar dependence in favor of more traditional energy sources, and urges a diplomatic resolution to end the war with Iran through mediation rather than continued conflict. Toward the end, MacGregor casts Trump as trapped by a Washington status quo and the Israel lobby, expresses pessimism about congressional restraint, and reiterates his view that the current approach is unsustainable. He closes by reiterating the need to end the hostilities and find a different path forward, arguing that Iran should logically oversee a new, negotiated framework for the region.

Professor Michael Hudson and Glenn discuss how the war against Iran is reshaping the global economy and international order. Hudson contends this is World War III in the sense that energy, fertilizer, and oil exports are fundamental to the world economy, and the conflict targets these choke points. He notes a recent US stock market rally of about a thousand points, driven by hopes of reversibility, while insisting the war’s effects extend far beyond Iran and are irreversible. He asserts the US is waging a war to maintain control over the world oil economy by preventing any sovereignty that could export oil outside US influence. This includes sanctions on Iran and Russia, and earlier sanctions on Venezuela, with the aim of ensuring oil proceeds flow to US-controlled channels. He argues the US sought to control the Strait of Hormuz to decide who gets Gulf oil, but Trump’s advisers warned that attempting to seize Hormuz would leave troops as “sitting ducks,” yet the underlying goal remains “grab the oil.” He claims Iran’s objective is to guarantee security by removing all US bases in the Middle East and by relief of sanctions imposed by US allies; without that, Iran claims the world will not return to the previous order. Hudson emphasizes that the war disrupts key supply chains: oil, fertilizer, helium, sulfur, and related inputs. Although Iran allows oil exports via Hormuz for payments, it does not permit fertilizer exports, impacting the upcoming planting season. He forecasts the world entering the most serious depression since the 1930s due to these interruptions and the consequent financial ripples. On the financial system, Hudson explains that since the 2008 crisis, the US pursued zero or near-zero interest rates to rescue banks, enabling asset price inflation in real estate, stocks, and bonds. He describes a shift where non-bank lenders and private equity could borrow cheaply and buy up assets, creating a debt-led, Ponzi-like dynamic that depended on continued access to credit and rising asset prices. As long as rates stayed low, this system could keep rolling; now, with 10-year treasuries around 4.5 percent and 30-year mortgages above 5 percent, the cost of rolling over debt intensifies. The war-induced disruptions to energy and inputs threaten defaults and a feedback loop of debt collapse, catalyzing a depression. Regarding the broader international system, Hudson argues Europe is following sanctions on Russia at great economic cost, with Germany already experiencing GDP declines after energy sanctions in 2022. Europe’s shift away from Russian energy, the Ukraine-Hungary/gas dynamics, and the broader energy choke points threaten the cohesion of NATO and the EU. He predicts Europe may suffer consumer price increases and living standard cuts as deficits expand to subsidize heating and energy, leading to a reordering of alliances and economic blocs. He characterizes Asia–Russia–China as increasingly separate from Western systems, with a shift toward Asia as the growth center and Europe/US lagging. He asserts the West’s operational vocabulary frames the conflict as a clash of civilizations, but the underlying dynamic is a clash of classes, where the US seeks to subordinate others through energy and trade controls. Hudson argues the current trajectory signals not simply a decline but an abrupt systemic change: the end of the postwar Western-led order. He calls for rethinking international institutions and law, including a new framework to replace a discredited United Nations and to organize economic and military arrangements that protect sovereignty outside US-dominated systems. He highlights the need for energy and food self-sufficiency to resist weaponized foreign trade and to avoid being drawn into US-imposed economic chaos. In closing, Hudson points to Britain’s looming non-viability under deindustrialization and limited energy resources, illustrating how advanced economies may struggle to adapt to a new multipolar order.

- Trump has been presenting optimistic updates about negotiations with Iran, despite Iran denying them, and there is a belief that Monday morning actions are an attempt to manipulate markets, keep oil prices low, and keep the stock market high. - If a weekend land invasion of Iran occurs, many military experts suspect US troops would have to land or parachute in, which would change gold demand and pricing dynamics. - Speaker 1 explains that a true war outcome would require ground troops to take control of territory, not just air strikes or bombs. He notes Trump promised no troops on the ground, but argues that regime change would be impossible without occupying the country, leading to higher American casualties and families affected. - He warns that sending troops would mean they would have to stay in Iran, creating a prolonged conflict akin to Iraq or Afghanistan, with no clear exit strategy and ongoing political and strategic problems. - He suggests that Trump could alternatively declare victory and withdraw, claiming the destruction of Iran’s military capabilities (no navy, no air force, no nuclear program) as a complete victory and greatest military achievement. - The discussion then notes that the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war, implying strategic stakes and continued vulnerability. - Speaker 0 points out that Iran has pledged not to allow US occupation and would fight back, describing Iran as a country of 90 million with rugged terrain and highly motivated, religiously committed people who could be willing to die for their country. - They acknowledge the assumption that Iranians are uniformly supportive of a US liberation, labeling that notion as crazy. - They conclude that there could be even greater anti-American sentiment in Iran now than a month ago, recognizing that the population’s reaction to war may be hostile despite US actions.