reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

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.

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

The speaker argues that Iran studied the wars of the last two decades and concluded that you can win by not losing. To preserve leadership, Iran has kept a core leadership alive, and the leadership has been strengthened by the strikes faced. There is a belief that there is currently a lot of support inside Iran for the regime, more than a few months ago when support appeared weaker. The speaker notes Iran’s impressive capability to manufacture and disperse ballistic missiles and drones. They point to the Strait of Hormuz as a narrow chokepoint that Iran can exploit by intermittently deploying drones, ballistic missiles, and mines to disrupt world energy flows. Iran is using this leverage while allowing oil to move through the Straits, and they are leveraging relations with China and other world powers to keep oil flows open, suggesting a strategic use of economic diplomacy. The claim is that Iran is deliberately signaling that oil can pass through but that the regime is willing to complicate that flow when it serves their aims. Politically, Iran is portrayed as knowing that a protracted war would not be popular globally, so they have found a steady-state: they can continue striking targets in the Middle East and make life uncomfortable for GCC countries. This ongoing pressure is seen as something they can sustain while external support for them remains, though the speaker expects that support to erode over time. The speaker also highlights a fissure in relations with Saudi Arabia, describing growing fractures that complicate the ability of the United States to project power against Iran. Saudi Arabia’s cooperation is deemed key for countering Iran, and the rifts undermine that dynamic. Overall, the speaker concludes that, from their perspective, there are few downsides for Iran in continuing the war. They believe Iran can maintain their efforts with minimal exertion and continue the conflict far longer than the United States and its allies can sustain, thereby preserving and potentially strengthening Iran’s position over an extended period.

Speaker 0 questions the rationale for the war, noting that “the intelligence did not suggest that an attack was imminent from Iran,” and asking, “What is left? Why are we at war with Iran?” He also remarks that “the nuclear program isn’t the reason” and that he never expected to hear Ted Cruz talking about nukes. Speaker 1 suggests the simplest explanation given, which has been backtracked, is that “Israel made us do it, that Bibi decided on this timeline, Netanyahu decided he wanted to attack, and he convinced Trump to join him by scaring Trump into believing that US assets in the region would be at risk, and so Trump was better off just joining Netanyahu.” He adds that this may not be the full explanation, but it’s a plausible one. He notes that “the nuclear program is not part of their targeting campaign,” and that “harder line leadership is taking hold,” with the Strait of Hormuz “still being shut down even as we get their navy.” He asks what remains as the explanation, suggesting it might be that Israel forced the United States’ hand and questions, “How weak does that make The United States look? How weak are we if our allies can force us into wars of choice that are bad for US national security interests?”

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.

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

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.

Speaker 0 proposed a two-part plan regarding oil and the Strait of Hormuz. First, he suggested buying oil from the United States of America, stating that “we have plenty. We have so much.” Second, he urged building up “delayed courage,” saying it should have been done before and should have been done with us as we asked. He instructed: “Go to the straight and just take it. Protect it. Use it for yourselves.” Regarding Iran, Speaker 0 asserted that Iran has been “essentially decimated,” and that “the hard part is done, so it should be easy.” He claimed that when this conflict ends, “the strait will open up naturally. It’ll just open up naturally.” He concluded that Iran’s neighbors “are gonna wanna be able to sell oil because that's all they have to try and rebuild.”

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

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

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

Speaker 0: This war was never about Iran. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. Everyone's focused on the missiles, the Strait Of Hormuz, the oil price, but nobody's asking the only question that matters. Who actually gets hurt when Iran's oil disappears? Not America. Not Europe. China. 80% of Iranian oil goes to Asia. China has been buying millions of barrels from Iran every single month under the table around sanctions through back channels. Iran is China's cheap energy lifeline, and Trump just cut it off. He bombed Karg Island, the one port that handles 90% of Iran's oil exports. He didn't hit it by accident. He hit it because that's the pipe that feeds Beijing. But here's what makes this genius. Before he even touched Iran, he captured Maduro, took Venezuela, secured the largest oil reserves on the planet for The US. So when Iran's oil disappears from the global market, America has the replacement. China doesn't. Think about what that means. China's energy costs just exploded. Their factories, their manufacturing, their entire economic engine runs on cheap oil, and the cheap oil just got cut off. While America is sitting on Venezuela on domestic production on the strongest energy position in decades, Iran didn't lose this war. Iran was never the target. Iran was the move you sacrifice to take the queen. This was never a war in The Middle East. This is an energy war against China, and most people won't understand that until it's already over. Wake up.

The speaker asserts that there is a legitimacy to target civilian targets and urges the Iranian to believe president Trump and prime minister Netanyahu, arguing that they have shown in the last month they are capable of striking any target in Iran. The speaker then shifts to the Strait of Hormuz, questioning whether “we’ll continue to play the game with the Strait Of Hormuz” and describing the situation as beyond imagination. They claim that those in question will blackmail and actually collect money from countries in order to allow them to use the straits. The speaker concludes that this piracy in 2026 must not be allowed to continue.

Speaker 0, Speaker 1, and Speaker 2 discuss the evolving confrontation between the United States and Iran and its broader economic and strategic implications. Speaker 0 highlights three predictions: (1) Trump would win, (2) he would start a war with Iran, and (3) the US would lose that war, asking if these predictions are still valid. Speaker 1 characterizes the current phase as a war of attrition between the United States and Iran, noting that Iranians have been preparing for twenty years and now possess “a pretty good strategy of how to weaken and ultimately destroy the American empire.” He asserts that Iran is waging war against the global economy by striking Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and targeting critical energy infrastructure and waterways such as the Baghdad channel and the Hormuz Strait, and eventually water desalination plants, which are vital to Gulf nations. He emphasizes that the Gulf States are the linchpin of the American economy because they sell petrodollars, which are recycled into the American economy through investments, including in the stock market. He claims the American economy is sustained by AI investments in data centers, much of which come from the Gulf States. If the Gulf States cease oil sales and finance AI, he predicts the AI bubble in the United States would burst, collapsing the broader American economy, described as a financial “ponzi scheme.” Speaker 2 notes a concrete example: an Amazon data center was hit in the UAE. He also mentions the United States racing to complete its Iran mission before munitions run out. Speaker 1 expands on the military dynamic, arguing that the United States military is not designed for a twenty-first-century war. He attributes this to the post–World War II military-industrial complex, which was built for the Cold War and its goals of technological superiority. He explains that American military strategy relies on highly sophisticated, expensive technology—the air defense system—leading to an asymmetry in the current conflict: million-dollar missiles attempting to shoot down $50,000 drones. He suggests this gap is unsustainable in the long term and describes it as the puncturing of the aura of invincibility that has sustained American hegemony for the past twenty years.

Speaker 0 explains that once goals are achieved, Americans understand that “we’re real partners.” Speaker 1 reinforces: “Real partners.” Speaker 0 contends that what has to be done is to have alternative routes instead of going through the choke points of the Hormuz Straits and the Bab El Mandeb Straits in order to have the flow. Speaker 1 prompts: “Wait for it.” Speaker 0 continues: “Just have oil pipelines going west to through the Arabian Peninsula To where? Right up to Israel, right up to our Mediterranean. There” Speaker 1 interjects: “you have it.” Speaker 0 asserts that the real objective of all of this was to intentionally—“they knew that starting a war with Iran would cause a shutdown of both the Bab El Mamdab Straits, which is what the Houthis can affect in the Red Sea, and then the Strait Of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively shut down.” He states that they knew that would happen because their long-term goal has always been to force the Muslim countries in the Arab states, the Gulf Arab states, to route all of their oil exports through Israel. Speaker 1 adds: “Therefore, Israel can now control up to 40% of the world's petroleum. And that amount of control would absolutely make them a superpower, and that's exactly what they want.” Speaker 0 goes on to say that if Iran falls, it’s not going to be Turkey next; it’s going to be Egypt because they have to take back the Suez Canal. He notes that Egypt had control during the Arab-Israeli war for a brief time, but the UN forced them to give it back to Egypt. He emphasizes that they have always wanted that back. Speaker 1 contributes: “Because if they can control the Suez Canal and take that away from Egypt and they can force all the Gulf states to run all their oil through Israel. Israel controls the world, and that's their ultimate objective. That's the objective of this war.”

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

The Strait of Hormuz is extremely important: about 20 to 25% of the world’s petroleum passes through it, roughly a third of the world’s fertilizer comes through the strait, and about 10 to 12% of the world’s aluminum also moves via this route. If the war continues and the strait becomes really closed (it isn’t completely closed right now), Iranian ships carrying oil go through the strait. The United States is permitting Iranian oil to enter the oil market for the same reason it removes sanctions on Russian oil: President Trump wants to ensure there is as much oil in the international market as possible so that oil prices stay down. So oil continues to come out of the Gulf, and most of it is Iranian oil. If the strait were shut off, there would be very significant effects on the international economy. Even if it isn’t shut, oil prices are expected to creep up, which would increase pressure on President Trump to try to open the strait. But there is no way to open the strait, and the fact that President Trump is asking for help in that mission shows that the mighty US Navy, the mightiest naval force on the planet, cannot open the strait by itself. This indicates the level of trouble we’re in. Moving forward, it looks like the Iranians have a very powerful hand to play.

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.

Glenn (Speaker 0) and John Mersheimer (Speaker 1) discuss the Iran war and its trajectory. Mersheimer asserts the war is not going well for the United States and that President Trump cannot find an off ramp because there is no plausible endgame or decisive victory against Iran. He notes that if Iran can turn the conflict into a protracted war of attrition, it has incentives and means to do so, including a strong bargaining position to demand sanctions relief or reparations. He argues the United States and Israel are not the sole drivers; Iran has a say, and there is no credible story about ending the war on American terms. Mersheimer cautions that even heavy bombardment or “today being the day of the heaviest bombardment” would not necessarily compel Iran to quit. He suggests Tehran will respond by escalating, potentially striking Gulf States and Israel with missiles and drones, given Iran’s capability with accurate drones and ballistic missiles in a target-rich environment. He emphasizes Iran’s incentive to avoid a settlement that yields no gains for Tehran while seeking concessions or relief from sanctions as time passes, increasing American pressure to settle. He warns that if international economic effects worsen, the United States may push for an end to the war, but that would constitute conceding to the Iranians rather than achieving victory. Glenn asks about escalation dominance, noting Iran’s potential vulnerability of Gulf desalination and energy infrastructure. Mersheimer confirms Gulf desalination plants are a critical vulnerability (Riyadh’s desalination plant servicing 90% of Riyadh’s water; Kuwait 90%; Oman 76%; Saudi water about 70%; desalination is essential). He reiterates that Iran can target desalination alongside petroleum infrastructure to cripple Gulf States and that such actions would also affect Israel and the wider economy. He asserts Iran has the option to damage the Gulf States and thus impact the world economy, making escalation unlikely to yield a favorable US-Israeli outcome. The energy dimension is central: 20% of the world’s oil and gas comes from the Persian Gulf. The Straits of Hormuz are unlikely to be opened easily, and destroying Gulf States’ infrastructure would make that moot anyway. He explains that even if Hormuz were open, damaged Gulf States would not export oil, and American naval escorting would be impractical due to vulnerability. He observes that the Iranians’ options threaten the international economy, and the United States’ off ramp is not readily available. Mersheimer provides a historical perspective on air power: strategic bombing cannot win wars alone, as seen in World War II and later conflicts. He notes that the present campaign lacks boots on the ground, relying on air power, but history shows air power alone is insufficient to achieve regime change or decisive victory against formidable adversaries like Iran. He argues that the decapitation strategy, followed by escalation, is unlikely to succeed and that the literature on air wars and sanctions supports this. They discuss previous warnings within the administration: General James Mattis (General Keane) and the National Intelligence Council warned before the war that regime change and quick victory were unlikely. Mersheimer highlights that only 20% of Americans supported the war initially, with 80% skeptical or opposed. He attributes some of the current predicament to Trump and Netanyahu's insistence on a quick victory, arguing that Netanyahu has pushed for a regime-change approach that failed. The conversation turns to Russia and China. Mersheimer contends that Russia benefits from the war by diverting US resources and relations away from Europe and Ukraine, strengthening Russia’s own strategic position. He suggests Russia may be aiding Iran with intelligence and possibly with weapons or energy, as well as improving its image in Iran. He asserts that this war distracts the US from Ukraine, harming Ukrainian efforts and potentially strengthening Russia economically by boosting demand for Russian oil and gas if Gulf supply is constrained. Europe’s position is examined. Mersheimer claims the European Union’s support is largely rhetorical; Europe’s elites fear a US departure from Europe and want to preserve NATO. He argues Europe’s interests will be largely ignored in a US-dominated conflict, with Macron’s stance portrayed as exaggerated power. He suggests Europe is hurt by the war and that their leverage over the United States is limited unless they diversify away from exclusive dependence on the US. In closing, Glenn and John reflect on leadership and propaganda. Mersheimer reiterates that leaders lie in international politics, with democracies more prone to lying to their publics than autocracies, and notes that Trump’s statements—such as Iran possessing Tomahawk missiles or the nuclear capability being erased—are examples of implausible or untruthful claims. He emphasizes the rational strategic thinking of Iranian and Russian leaders, but critiques the American leadership’s strategic understanding. The discussion concludes with reflections on Europe’s potential hardball approach toward the United States, and the need for diversification in European strategy to counter American leverage. The interview ends with appreciation for the exchange and a shared wish that the subject were less depressing.

- 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.

Speaker 0 begins by noting a new escalation in the war: after the president's Easter-weekend speech, the United States struck a massive bridge in Tehran, described as part of Tehran’s pride because it would cut about an hour from Iranians’ commutes. Trump posts, “the biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again,” and says, “Make a deal before it’s too late.” He warns that nothing is left of what could still become a great country. Speaker 1 responds with skepticism about the administration, mocking the idea of “the Nord Stream pipeline” being blown up as a lie by the prior administration. Speaker 0 notes that Trump boasted about the bridge strike on Truth Social and questions the strategic value of targeting civilian infrastructure, comparing it to striking the Golden Gate Bridge and asking whether that would be labeled a war crime. Iranian retaliation follows: a strike at the center of Tehran (clarified as Tel Aviv in error in the transcript) with a ballistic missile, causing a neighborhood to burn, as shown on Fox News and circulating on social media. Reports also emerge that an Amazon data center was struck in Bahrain, Oracle in the UAE, and that Iran had claimed it would strike Microsoft, Google, Amazon and other large American companies. The United States is not protecting them. Speaker 2 engages Colonel Daniel Davis, host of The Deep Dive with Dan Davis, to assess the latest moves alongside the president’s speech. Speaker 2 argues that the president’s remarks about “bomb you back into the stone age” indicate punishing the civilian population, not just military targets, which could unite Iranians against the United States and Israel. The bridge strike appears to align with that stance, making a regional outcome that contradicts any stated aims. He calls it nearly a war crime, since civilian infrastructure has no military utility in this context. He suggests the action undermines any potential peace path and could prompt stronger resistance within Iran. He warns that, politically, Trump could face war-crimes scrutiny, especially under a Democratic-controlled House, and that it damages the United States’ reputation by appearing to disregard the rule of law and morality. Speaker 1 asks whether such tactics are ever effective, noting a lack of evidence that inflicting civilian suffering yields political concession. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 reference historical examples (Nazis, British during the Battle of Britain, Hiroshima-era considerations) to suggest such tactics have not succeeded in breaking civilian resolve, arguing this approach would harden Iranian resistance. Speaker 2 cites broader historical or regional patterns: torture or collective punishment has failed against Germans, Japanese, Palestinians in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. He contends the appeal of using such power is seductive but dangerous, likening it to “war porn.” He notes that the number of Iranian fatalities floated by Trump has fluctuated (3,000, 10,000, 30,000, then 45,000), describing them as not credible, yet the administration seems unconcerned with accuracy. Speaker 3 adds that the rhetoric justifies escalating violence with humanitarian consequences, including potential energy-system disruption. Speaker 0 asks about the discrepancy between Trump’s claim of decimating Iran and subsequent attacks on multiple targets in the Gulf and the firepower Iran still holds, including underground facilities and missile capabilities. Speaker 2 explains that Iran can absorb punishment and still strike back, suggesting that the Strait of Hormuz cannot be opened by force and that escalation could involve considerations of a larger false-flag scenario. He mentions a warning about a potential nine-eleven-level attack and potential media complicity, implying fears of a false-flag operation blamed on Iran. Speaker 0 notes the possibility of Israeli involvement undermining negotiations and cites JD Vance’s planned meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, noting Kharazi’s injury and his wife’s death, implying an assassination attempt. Speaker 2 critiques U.S. reliance on allies, arguing that Israel’s actions threaten U.S. interests and that the White House should constrain Israel. He asserts there is no military solution to the conflict, warns of long-term costs to the United States and its European and Asian relations, and predicts economic consequences if the conflict continues. Speaker 1 remarks that Iranian leaders’ letter to the American people shows civilian intent not to surrender, while Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 emphasize the risk of ongoing conflict, with Colonel Davis concluding that there is no feasible open-strand resolution. The discussion ends with thanks to Colonel Davis for his analysis.

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

Speaker 0: We also saw a US battleship today that had to be turned around because of the Houthis essentially, and had to be redirected out of that range to go all the way around out of the Red Sea. Like, we can't even deal with the Houthis, and we think we're gonna somehow puncture through the Strait Of Hormuz. Anyway, what do you see happening next after this pause? Speaker 1: Yeah. That that was the the George W. Bush, which is coming to replace the the the Right. Ford, the USS Ford. And instead of just going through the normal, I think it's the Suez Canal down into the Red Sea like the normal shorter path, we went all the way around Africa because we were worried that the Houthis may take it under attack. And if you get in the Red Sea there, I mean, could be like a shooting gallery as would be the case if we actually went into the Strait Of Hormuz with our ships not during a ceasefire. They would be at risk of being hit by any number of different, ammunition and weapon systems that the Iranians have. So that does show that we are despite what words we use, we're aware of the limits of our power, and we don't wanna put ourselves in a position to get into having some of our, especially flagships sunk or or flames and getting burned up in, you know, in the waterways there. But that also tells you that there's a reason why the Strait Of Hormuz is still closed and is still controlled by the uranium side of any oil we want to get out because we can't compel them to do it. And so if you start firing back again, it's not gonna change that. So the straight will stay closed, and the the the fertilizers will still not be able to get out. The helium will not be able to get out. So that means the chip making in Asia is gonna start to really suffer. And the whole supply chain issue all around the world with our whole global economy is gonna start falling apart. All this because we will not exceed to reality and that this is a war that is militarily unwinnable. It should never have been fought and needs to be gotten off the table quickly, but because president Trump has too much pride and can't accept that he can't do something, and he's been surrounded by people like Stephen Miller yesterday who just keeps saying, yeah. We can do everything just like in Venezuela even though there's no comparison between the two situations here. But they think there is, and they're telling president Trump it's similar because we can do whatever we wanna do. That's what Stephen Miller said. And if Trump is listening to that, he may believe it and be making policy decisions based on it, but it's not true no matter how much Stephen Miller says that it is, and we're gonna find out if we keep going down this path.