TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The conversation centers on Iran, its 47-year regime, and how to think about protest, reform, and potential change from the perspective of an Iranian-American who has lived in the United States most of his life. The speakers discuss the severity of the regime, the nature of the opposition, and the calculus involved in any push for change. - Freedom and the cost of change: Freedom is described as nasty and the regime as “nasty.” The speakers assert that the regime, including the IRGC, is not likely to give up Iran in a peaceful way. They emphasize that protests and resistance have been ongoing, and that the regime has a track record of destroying opposition. They use the imagery of public executions and a ruthless approach to suppression, comparing the regime’s behavior to a brutal, game-of-thrones-like motto. - Personal history and perspective: The guest notes his life trajectory—born during the 1978 revolution, living through the Shah’s era briefly, and then the Khomeini years—giving him a long historical frame for evaluating leadership and revolution. He remarks that he has no moral authority to tell Iranians how to protest or whether to risk their families, acknowledging the severe personal stakes for those on the ground. He stresses the bravery and resilience of the Iranian people and explains the immense pressures that drive ordinary citizens to protest. - The strategic challenge of regime change: The guest asserts that the regime wants to stretch negotiations and extend days to avoid losing resources, implying a protracted endurance tactic. He insists that replacing or reforming the regime would be extremely difficult, given the depth of the regime’s networks and its long tenure. - Reza Pahlavi and leadership dynamics: The discussion revisits Reza Pahlavi, the former shah’s son, noting his recent high-profile activity, meetings in Washington, and televised statements. The guest acknowledges both praise and criticism of Reza Pahlavi, arguing that leadership in Iran would require clear, tough decisions and that those who criticize him must provide constructive counterarguments rather than ad hominem attacks. He discusses the complexity of leadership in exile and the challenges of returning to Iran to lead, including loyalty issues within the military and the risk of betrayal. - The US and foreign policy angle: The hosts debate what role the United States should play, including the consideration of strikes or sanctions. The guest uses a parable about a local offense (a killer in Miami) to illustrate how a country should commit to eliminating a threat without broad interference in other regions’ problems. He argues for public support of a targeted objective but cautions against broad, nation-building wars that could trigger larger conflicts. He also notes the influence of other actors, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia, China, and European nations, on the Iran situation, suggesting a multi-layered and opaque calculus in any action. - The question of strikes and objectives: The speakers discuss whether strikes should aim to completely destroy the regime or merely pressure it, emphasizing that the intention behind any military action matters more than the action itself. They consider the risk of a dangerous power vacuum, comparing potential outcomes to Libya or Iraq, and discuss the possibility of negotiating with a different leadership that could concede to protesters’ demands while minimizing harm to the broader population. They acknowledge the difficulty of achieving a favorable outcome without risking unintended consequences. - The role of sanctions and diplomacy: The sanctions are described as byproducts of the regime’s leadership and its lack of diplomacy, with the argument that sanctions affect the Iranian people more than the ruling elite. The dialogue touches on questions of accountability for the regime’s behavior and the broader regional dynamics, including public sentiment in Iran and international responses. - Mossad and external involvement: The guest asserts that Mossad and Israel are heavily involved in Iran’s internal dynamics and protests, given the existential stakes and the perception of threats against Iranian leadership. He contends that foreign intelligence communities are active in shaping events and information, including potential misdirection and propaganda. - The broader takeaway: The discussion ends by underscoring the need for multiple options and credible leadership in Iran, the difficulty of changing a deeply entrenched regime, and the reality that any transition would be complex, potentially dangerous, and require careful, strategic consideration of long-term impacts rather than quick, sweeping actions. The host reflects on the remarkable intensity and busyness of US politics and foreign policy under a dynamic administration, noting that such a convergence of domestic and international pressures makes this period historically singular.

Glenn: Welcome back. We’re joined by professor Syed Mohammed Marandi, from Tehran University and former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Thank you for coming back. Marandi: Hi, Glenn. Thank you. It shows how much I like your show because I went through a lot of trouble to get online. Glenn: I appreciate it. Regarding the riots in Iran, Tehran included, it seems every time there’s a buildup to regime change or invasion, the script follows a pattern: first destabilize with sanctions and an information war, then build on public grievances and instigate violent protests. You announce the intention to help locals in their aspirations for freedom, with rhetoric reduced to a binary: either you don’t care about the protesters or you support sanctions or intervention. After a coup or invasion, the US and its allies have a zero-sum geopolitical interest and power interest, not altruism. The result, from the Arab Spring onward, is that the country to be liberated is destroyed. Iranian protests are an internal issue, but once international, geopolitics intrudes. How do you assess the situation on the ground in Tehran, domestic grievances, and the geopolitical component? Marandi: Western media and think tanks periodically declare Iran on the verge of collapse, but the state has popular support and a strong constitutional adherence. Currency suddenly fell—perhaps 30–50% in a brief period—and was managed from abroad, with pressure from the US and Western allies on currency-exchange places. Peaceful protests in Tehran and other cities followed mainly by business people whose shops were threatened by rising prices; if the currency isn’t stabilized, they’d go out of business. Protests continued into day two, with larger crowds in some cities. Then infiltration occurred: small, well-disciplined groups began to riot. Over the past days, over 100 officers were murdered, some beheaded or burned alive, some police faces smashed. A nurse in a clinic was burned alive in the top floor; ambulances and fire engines were burned; a Red Crescent worker was killed. Western media claims “protesters” and ignores footage. Across the country today, demonstrations in support of the Islamic Republic and the constitution were large—city by city like Isfahan, Tabriz, Ahvaz, Mashhad, Tehran. The crowd in Tehran was among the largest ever. Despite rioters, millions showed up in demonstrations across the country. The Iranian state’s media is outspent by a global Persian-language media empire in the West, with billions spent on online campaigns, bot armies, and networks. Yet millions demonstrated in support of the state. People can see the footage themselves. The internet was shut down to coordinate rioters across groups including ISIS-related elements, monarchists, and Kurdish groups. The rioters’ coordination collapsed when the internet went down. The regime’s supporters remain, and demonstrations in Tehran and across Iran show broad, diverse perspectives, all affirming support for the constitution and the state. Glenn: I’ve seen pro-government marches here as well; they’re huge, though not always covered in Europe. Marandi: There’s a narrative control to label the government illegitimate to topple it. The rhetoric claims Iranians are freedom-loving, yet those who claim to support them have bombs and blood. Pompeo’s tweet suggesting Mossad agents among protesters, and Mossad’s Persian-language statements, indicate foreign interference. The internet blackout aimed to prevent coordination among rioters; footage shows violent acts—two men burned in a mosque, a nurse burned in a clinic, ambulances and public buses destroyed. The “millions on the streets” claim is contradicted by the actuality of coordination via foreign paymasters. Glenn: Trump claimed Iran had fallen and would negotiate; is this about a new nuclear deal, stalled or about missiles and Iran’s regional support? What are Washington’s aims? Marandi: No one contacted him; his claim about the second-largest city falling is baseless. His ignorance shows inchoate knowledge of ground realities. Trump’s past statements about surrendering Iran suggest aims aligned with the Israeli regime’s goals: a broken West Asia and North Africa, fragmentation of states, and meddling across the region. Erdogan’s miscalculation—allying with Israel and Qatar—empowered Israeli policy at the expense of Turkey, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. The “woman, life, freedom” protests were initially fueled by Western narratives; BBC Persian and other outlets spread misinformation about Massa Amini, which was later corrected, but the cycle repeats. The West uses propaganda to push riots; Iran’s endurance of sanctions and propaganda demonstrates broad legitimacy for the Islamic Republic even amid external pressure. The demonstrations today show support for the state, the constitution, and Iran’s policies while denouncing the US, the Israeli regime, and their supporters. AOC’s stance and Trump’s stance reflect a uniparty tendency toward empire preservation. Glenn: Regarding potential war, Lindsey Graham floated strikes; how likely is war? Marandi: The currency manipulation aimed to justify instability for war. The CIA, Mossad, and others would seek to justify strikes, but Iran is prepared for war. If the US attacks, Iran may strike back; the population that stood with the state could unite in the face of aggression. Iran’s capabilities include underground drone and missile bases, short- to medium-range missiles, more easily moved than long-range missiles. Iran could devastate US installations if attacked. If war occurs, Iran could retaliate in the Persian Gulf and beyond, potentially impacting global economies. If the US begins, Iran could respond decisively, targeting American interests abroad and in the region. The Zionists allegedly favor war for their regional aims, regardless of Western consequences. Glenn: Professor Malandy, thank you for traveling and for the discussion. Marandi: Always a pleasure, Glenn.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US involvement in Iran, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy more US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Khomeini but later supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, fearing the spread of Shiite fundamentalism. The US also supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to bait the Soviets into a costly war. The US gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Iran, fearing the influence of the Iranian revolution on Iraq's Shiite population. The US government facilitated Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Iran. After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US intervened to reinstall the Kuwaiti king, lying about Iraqi threats to Saudi Arabia. The US then betrayed the Shiite uprising in Iraq, fearing Iranian influence. The US supported Al Qaeda in conflicts like Bosnia and Kosovo, even as Al Qaeda attacked the US. Neoconservatives pushed for war with Iraq to benefit Israel, aiming to rebuild an oil pipeline to Haifa. The US then backed Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria to weaken Iran and its ally, Assad. Obama took Al Qaeda's side in Libya. The US has been fighting a proxy war against Russia. The US has a pattern of supporting Bin Ladenite suicide bombers. Trump bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, calling the Ayatollah's bluff. The US continues to prioritize foreign interests over domestic needs.

In 2011, Obama suggested overthrowing Bashar al Assad, leading to years of war in Syria. The US attempted regime change, obstructing a UN peace agreement. Motives for overthrowing Assad remain unclear, possibly due to arrogance or financial interests. Similar actions in Libya resulted in chaos. These decisions lack transparency and have long-lasting consequences.

US politicians accuse other nations of election meddling, but the CIA has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs through military coups. In one example, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Iran's prime minister for nationalizing the oil industry, leading to widespread violence and the installation of a US-friendly government. Declassified documents reveal the CIA's involvement in the coup, highlighting their use of propaganda and bribery. Despite claims of no longer meddling in elections, the CIA director openly admitted to continuing such actions for "very good reasons."

In the discussion, Speaker 1 argues that Iran’s objective is simply to survive; their strategy is to continue lobbing missiles, launching drones, and striking back as the U.S. approaches within Iran’s vicinity. He contends Iran has maintained command and control, dispersed forces, and possesses a large and enduring supply of missiles and drones, so the minimal victory for Iran is to endure the conflict. When asked what the U.S. should do to win, Speaker 1 criticizes bombastic rhetoric about U.S. superiority and questions the efficacy of regime change through bombing. He suggests that killing the supreme leader backfires by galvanizing the population and Shiites worldwide, noting Iran’s developed succession mechanisms that compensate for leadership losses. He argues that attempts to destroy Iran or disintegrate its society are misguided and that, if the U.S. pushes toward such aims, it may trigger greater confrontation with China and Russia. He also implies mixed signals from U.S. leadership, contrasting expectations under Biden with actual actions, and contemplates a similar pattern under Trump. Speaker 2 adds that President Trump could claim success by neutralizing key figures like the Ayatollah, but suggests that Israel’s preferences are driving U.S. policy, implying limited autonomy for America. He notes the risk of being drawn back into conflict and emphasizes uncertainty about public perception as the war continues. He remarks on the presence of pro-war voices and social media pushback, interpreting it as a sign that the audience may be “over the target.” Speaker 0 seeks a military assessment of the current state: the Iranian capacity, the Israeli position, and American casualty figures. Speaker 1 assesses Israel as internally distressed: internal unrest, exhausted armed forces, and a large exodus of citizens; he predicts Israel faces an ominous future and foresees Israel possibly deteriorating before Iran. He describes Israel’s use of mercenaries and acknowledges substantial damage on both sides, with Netanyahu’s visibility limited. In the broader Persian Gulf, Speaker 1 states that deterrence has failed among regional powers such as the Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The United States is perceived as hampered by a long logistical footprint; uncertainty about missile stocks and intercepts persists, but Speaker 1 asserts that Iran can sustain war for a long time and that bombing alone will not compel Iranian capitulation. He foresees intensified U.S. troop and firepower deployment, including three carrier battle groups over the next two weeks, to replace the current forces. Overall, the conversation centers on Iran’s resilience, the limited likelihood that bombing will force regime change, the risk of broader great-power involvement, and growing weariness and strategic complications for all sides, with Iran poised to endure and possibly prevail in the long term.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US-Iran relations, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Khomeini but then soured after the hostage crisis, triggered by the Shah's admission into the US for cancer treatment at Rockefeller's request. The Carter Doctrine declared the Persian Gulf an American lake. Brzezinski sought to bait the Soviets into Afghanistan, leading to the Carter Doctrine to deter Soviet expansion into Iran, though he later admitted the Soviet threat to Iran was overstated. The US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, enabling his use of chemical weapons against Iranians. The US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, leading to the rise of Al Qaeda. The US gave Saddam a green light to invade Kuwait, then intervened to protect Saudi Arabia. The Clinton administration adopted a dual containment policy against Iraq and Iran, further fueling Al Qaeda's animosity. Bin Laden cited US support for Israel and bases in Saudi Arabia as key grievances. The US supported Al Qaeda in Chechnya and Bosnia, even as they attacked the US. Neoconservatives, many with Trotskyist backgrounds, advocated for war with Iraq to benefit Israel, aiming to rebuild an oil pipeline to Haifa. The US supported Al Qaeda-linked groups in Libya and Syria, leading to the rise of ISIS. Obama took Al Qaeda's side in Libya and then moved Gaddafi's arms to Al Qaeda in Syria. The US has been fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US involvement in Iran, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Khomeini but later supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran, fearing the spread of Shiite revolution. The US supported Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, even enabling his use of chemical weapons. Simultaneously, the US backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, leading to the rise of Al Qaeda. The US then intervened in Iraq after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, but later abandoned the Shiite uprising. Clinton's administration adopted a dual containment policy against Iraq and Iran, further fueling anti-American sentiment. The speaker claims the neoconservative movement pushed for war with Iraq to benefit Israel, aiming to rebuild an oil pipeline to Haifa. The US supported Al Qaeda-linked groups in Libya and Syria, leading to the rise of ISIS. The speaker concludes that US foreign policy has been driven by the interests of foreign powers rather than American interests, advocating for a retrenchment of American power and a focus on domestic issues.

The speaker asserts that the United States bears responsibility for Iran’s later radicalism, contending that the American government is the reason Iran became radical. The reasoning given is that Iran had a democratically elected leader, Mossadegh, whom the speaker claims the U.S. did not like because he wanted to nationalize the oil. The speaker notes that the British also disliked Mossadegh for the same reason, and references a historical moment—1953—described as the Iranian coup d'etat, stating that it was aided by intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. Following this intervention, the speaker claims that the United States and its allies “put the shah back in,” describing the shah as physically sick and unpopular. This sequence, according to the speaker, established conditions that paved the way for a rise in and persistence of radical elements within Islam for many decades. The points are presented in a causal narrative: U.S. opposition to Mossadegh over oil nationalization contributed to intervention in Iran, which led to restoring the Shah; the Shah’s unpopularity and ill health, under this arrangement, helped create an environment that empowered radical Islamist forces for an extended period. Key claims highlighted include: - The American government is depicted as the root cause of Iran’s later radicalism. - Mossadegh’s push to nationalize oil made him a target of U.S. and British opposition. - The 1953 coup d'etat in Iran was aided by intelligence agencies from the UK and the United States. - The Shah was reinstalled after the coup and is characterized as physically ill and unpopular. - This sequence is said to have paved the way for the most radical elements of Islam for many decades. The speaker emphasizes the continuity of this historical arc as a justification for present-day views on Iran, linking early mid-20th-century foreign intervention to long-term Islamist radicalism. The narrative is presented as a straightforward cause-and-effect chain, with the 1953 coup and the Shah’s reinstatement identified as pivotal events leading to subsequent decades of radicalization.

Mario asks Larry for his analysis of the likelihood of a US attack on Iran. Larry says he thinks it will happen, probably by March or sooner, and that the operation would be a cooperative intelligence effort involving the CIA, Mossad, and Britain’s MI6. He claims the Iranian regime is fighting for survival and that the December 28 currency crash was a consequence of actions initiated by US intelligence, describing it as deliberate, and comparing it to George Soros crashing the British pound to argue that unified intelligence communities could destabilize an economically weaker country. He says the protests were legitimate anger at economic mismanagement by the Pazheshkin government, not a call to overthrow the Islamic Republic, and asserts Iran’s leadership began responding immediately by removing the central banker. Mario notes a regional military buildup: USS Abraham Lincoln, F-15s, Pegasus, Stratotankers, Globemaster, and other assets moving toward the region, with Iran warning the US not to strike. He asks for analysis of the likelihood of a US strike. Larry reiterates his view that such an attack is likely by March or sooner and argues the initial plan was long in the works, a joint intelligence operation, and not a reaction to protests. He asserts the urgency was to crash Iran’s economy to incite protests and weaken the regime, and emphasizes that the cyber- and information-dominance aspect was anticipated, with Starlink terminals smuggled into Iran prior to December 28. He claims Netanyahu’s appearance at Mar-a-Lago on December 29 and discussions between Trump and Netanyahu shaped the military plan, with dissident groups acting to inflame the situation using a Maidan-like playbook of snipers and protests. Larry describes Iran’s internet shutdown on January 8-9 as a turning point that reduced protest organization and led millions to demonstrate in support of Khamenei, arguing the US briefing to Trump could not guarantee a decisive strike and therefore the operation was postponed. He says Iran now has Russia and China backing more robustly, with Russian technicians and air defenses on the ground, and China providing air defense and assisting with Starlink interdiction. He adds that Iran could shut the Strait of Hormuz if attacked, highlighting its economic stakes and the potential global impact on oil supply. Mario asks about casualty numbers from the crackdown and how credible Western reports are. Larry argues much of Western reporting has been driven by intelligence sources and cites a historical example: collaboration with the MEK starting in 2004 and into 2009, suggesting much of the western narrative around Iranian protests is propaganda. He references conversations with Iranian dissidents and an engineering professor in Brazil who argued the West’s portrayal of mass deaths does not match what he observed. He notes Mossad assets on the ground and suggests the CIA has acknowledged this in some form, and contends sanctions, while damaging to ordinary Iranians, are part of a broader US strategy. The discussion shifts to Iran’s potential internal dynamics and regional relations. Mario asks whether sanctions might eventually lead to a more conciliatory Iran, pointing to improved ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Larry counters that the sanctions strategy has previously failed to deliver lasting regime change, drawing parallels to Syria’s experience and suggesting BRICS ties, including with Russia and China, would help Iran economically. He argues Iran has no desire to pro-actively attack other countries, but is prepared to respond to aggression, including potential strikes on US bases or Israel if provoked, and warns that an Israeli nuclear response could escalate the conflict. The conversation explores the idea of regime change versus coercive diplomacy. Larry notes the difficulty of removing Iran’s leadership given the IRGC’s power and the possibility that any strike could lead to broader chaos, including potential desertion or reconfiguration of alliances in the region. He mentions Reza Pahlavi as a potential opposition figure but asserts regime change remains unlikely. He discusses the role of Netanyahu, Trump, and Zionist lobbying in policy decisions, and emphasizes the broader historical pattern of US interventionism, citing past coups and regime changes in various countries. Towards Greenland, Mario references Trump’s post about a framework for the Arctic deal and a halt to tariffs, questioning the motive behind Greenland-related strategies. Larry dismisses Greenland as a distraction, noting Russia’s existing Arctic advantages and suggesting economic interests or donor benefits may be at play rather than strategic necessity. The two discuss air defense capabilities and the challenges of the US’s missile defense, contrasting Patriot systems with hypersonic threats and arguing that America’s military hardware has not kept pace with evolving threats. They contemplate the broader implications for Ukraine, Russia, and the possibility of a peace settlement, with Larry predicting a settlement favorable to Russia, including potential annexation votes in several Ukrainian oblasts. The interview ends with reflections on media manipulation, the value of independent voices, and the enduring question of Iran’s future, with Mario and Larry agreeing they hope the discussion remains speculative rather than prescriptive of imminent conflict.

Host: Welcome back. We’re joined by Larry Johnson, a former CI analyst, to discuss what looks like a war with Iran coming sooner rather than later. The world is watching as the US mobilizes more military assets to the region. How should we read this? Is this preparation for war, or a show of strength during negotiations? Larry Johnson: I hoped it was intimidation, but people I trust in national security say this is far more serious. It’s described as one of two things: either a reprise of Midnight Hammer, when US and Iran coordinated two raids into northern Iran, or they’re preparing for an Israeli attack and to back Israel. It’s not just to force concessions at the negotiating table; it’s a warning indicator. Steve Bryan, a former undersecretary of defense, reacted emotionally to US–Iran negotiations, arguing that Iran is using a rope-a-dope strategy. This pressure toward attacking Iran is enormous, and Netanyahu’s visit suggests coordination. The issue has moved beyond nuclear weapons to ballistic missiles and support for Hamas and Hezbollah. The rhetoric around Hamas and Hezbollah is, in my view, a red herring; Israeli claims don’t match the facts. Trump is under heavy pressure from the Zionist lobby to act, and I think a violence outbreak in the next two weeks is plausible, though I hope I’m wrong. Host: The debate you referenced about motives is revealing. If the goal is to destabilize or create chaos to justify action, which past interventions show that hasn’t produced sustainable stability. If the aim is negotiation leverage, what can be achieved now? It seems the US insists on tying any nuclear deal to Iran abandoning its allies and deterrence. Johnson: Iran has built a formidable arsenal: 18 types of ballistic missiles, a recently reportedly successful intercontinental ballistic missile test, five types of cruise missiles, and over 15 types of drones. They’ve learned from decades of conflict with the US and see themselves as at war with the United States. The US narrative of Iran as the aggressor clashes with historical US actions that damaged Iran’s economy and civilian life. Iran’s patience has been tested; they’ve drawn a line in the sand and are prepared to defend themselves, retaliating massively if attacked. They now have support from China and Russia, including advanced radar and air defense, with Chinese and Russian ships headed to the Arabian Sea for a joint exercise. If conflict escalates, Iran could retaliate across the region, with regional actors potentially joining in. Host: You mentioned the tactical realities of the region. The US has deployed many F-35s to the region, including land-based F-35s for SEAD. There are reports of a large US presence in Armenia, and Iran’s potential to strike Haifa or Tel Aviv if attacked. The geopolitical picture is complex, with Russia and China providing support to Iran. The US carrier fleet in the Gulf would face Iranian, Russian, and Chinese air defenses and missiles, including hypersonics. The question is whether the US can sustain a prolonged, scalable war against Iran. Johnson: The US’s sea-based strength is being tested. In the Red Sea, the US faced difficulties against the Houthis with two carriers and a robust air-defense screen; in the current scenario, Iran’s capabilities—air defenses, missiles, drones, and support from Russia and China—make a quick, decisive victory unlikely. Moreover, Israel’s own readiness for a broader war is uncertain; Netanyahu’s visit to the US could signal coordination, but Israeli media note that they may join only if Iran is on the back foot. There’s concern about intelligence reliability: Mossad assets that aided last year’s operations in Iran may be compromised, while Iran benefits from new radar and integrated air defenses. Host: Regional reactions could be pivotal. Iran has contingency plans against regional targets, and Armenia/Azerbaijan might be used as launch pads. Saudi Arabia and Qatar may sit this out if possible, while Iraq has aligned with Iran. The broader question is whether diplomacy can prevail, or whether the cycle of treating conflicts with force will continue. There’s a critique of Western policy: the idea that Iran wants to destroy the US is simplistic, and the region’s dynamics are far more nuanced. Johnson: Iran’s potential to escalate, regional dynamics, and great-power backing mean this could be more than a localized conflict. The overarching point is that there are limits to military power; politics and diplomacy remain essential, and the West’s current posture underestimates the complexity of Iran’s deterrence and regional links. Host: Thanks, Larry. I’ll link to Sonar 21 for more of your writings.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of striking Iran to eliminate its nuclear program and the broader implications of regime change. - Speaker 0 acknowledges arguments that Israel has wanted to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, and that American involvement with B-52s and large bombs might be needed to finish the job. He notes the idea of a strike that proceeds quickly with minimal American casualties, under a Trump-era frame that Iran will not get a nuclear bomb. - He observes a shift among Washington’s neoconservative and Republican circles from opposing Iran’s nuclear capability to opposing Ayatollah rule itself, suggesting a subtle change in objectives while maintaining the theme of intervention. He concedes cautious support if Trump executes it prudently, but warns of a “switcheroo” toward regime change rather than purely disabling the nuclear program. - Speaker 0 criticizes the record of neocons on foreign policy (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, the Arab Spring) and argues that the entire Middle East bears their failures. He emphasizes a potential regime-change drive and questions what would come after removing the Ayatollah, including possible US troop deployments and financial support for a new regime. - He highlights the size of Iran (about 92,000,000 people, two and a half times the size of Texas) and warns that regime change could trigger a bloody civil war and a large refugee crisis, possibly drawing tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths and destabilizing Europe. - Speaker 1 presents a more vocal stance: he would like to see the regime fall and leaves to the president the timing and method, insisting that if the nuclear program isn’t eliminated now, “we’ll all regret it” and urging to “be all in” to help Israel finish the job. - In cuts 3:43, Speaker 1 argues that removing the Ayatollah’s regime would be beneficial because staying in power would continue to threaten Israel, foment terrorism, and pursue a bomb; he characterizes the regime as aiming to destroy Jews and Sunni Islam, calling them “fanatical religious Nazis.” - Speaker 0 responds that such a forceful call for regime change is immature, shallow, and reckless, warning that certainty about outcomes in foreign interventions is impossible. He asserts that the first rule of foreign policy is humility, noting that prior interventions led to prolonged conflict and mass displacement. He cautions against beating the drums for regime change in another Middle Eastern country, especially the largest, and reiterates that the issue is not simply removing the nuclear program but opposing Western-led regime change. - The discussion frames a tension between supporting efforts to deny Iran a nuclear weapon and resisting Western-led regime change, with a strong emphasis on potential humanitarian and geopolitical consequences. The speakers reference public opinion (citing 86% of Americans not wanting Iran to have a bomb) and critique interventions as historically destabilizing.

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.

Scott Horton discusses the history of US-Iran relations, starting with the 1953 coup against Mosaddegh and the reinstallation of the Shah. This action led to blowback, exemplified by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Nixon pressured the Shah to buy US weapons, undermining his rule. The US initially tried working with Ayatollah Khomeini, viewing him as reasonable. In 1979, David Rockefeller influenced Carter to allow the Shah into the US for cancer treatment, triggering the hostage crisis. Carter then announced the Carter Doctrine, asserting US dominance in the Persian Gulf. Brzezinski aimed to provoke Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, later feigning concern about Iran. The US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, even enabling his use of chemical weapons. The US also backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, leading to the rise of Al Qaeda. The US then intervened in the Gulf War to reinstate the Kuwaiti King. Clinton adopted a dual containment policy against Iraq and Iran, further fueling anti-American sentiment. Bin Laden cited US support for Israel and military presence in Saudi Arabia as key grievances. The US supported Al Qaeda in Chechnya and the Balkans, even as they attacked US interests. The neoconservative movement pushed for war in Iraq, aiming to reshape the region to benefit Israel. The US invasion of Iraq empowered Shiite groups and Iran, contrary to neocon plans. The US then backed Sunni extremists in Syria to counter Iranian influence, leading to the rise of ISIS. Obama then sided with Al Qaeda in Libya. The US has a history of supporting various factions in the Middle East, often with unintended consequences. The US has been fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. The US has a long history of interventionism, often driven by foreign interests rather than American interests. The US should normalize relations with Iran.

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.

Trump was considered good on foreign policy, including getting out of Syria and defeating ISIS, but he was always hawkish on Iran. Zionists wanted a full conflict with Iran but only got the Soleimani assassination. Despite popular belief, Trump was allegedly pursuing regime change in Iran throughout his term, even getting close to overthrowing the Iranian government. This was also happening in Venezuela. Trump ripped up the JCPOA, and the rhetoric now suggests that such events wouldn't occur if Trump were president. Trump is trying to run even further to the right, making it hard to say no to war with Iran. Iran will be in the crosshairs regardless of the administration, especially for Israel, making them more of a target for the United States.

John Stubtack outlines a four-part regime-change playbook shearing Iran from the U.S.-Israeli perspective: 1) sanctions to wreck the economy and provoke public misery; 2) foment and fuel massive protests, with evidence cited of Mossad involvement and public statements by Trump and Pompeo supporting U.S. participation; 3) a massive disinformation campaign to sell to the West that protests are internally generated and that the regime is finished; 4) U.S. and likely Israeli military intervention to finish off the regime and topple it. He argues that, in Iran, phase four has not occurred and the protests have diminished significantly since their peak a week earlier. A Jerusalem Post December 29 article is cited as indicating Mossad’s deep involvement, and Trump and Pompeo are portrayed as openly backing the regime-change effort. There are other signals discussed: 40,000 Starlink terminals supplied to protesters after Iran shut down the Internet; Qatar and India issuing warnings to their citizens to leave the region; and an Israeli plane movement described as signaling preparation for potential action. Speaker 1 (Danny) and Speaker 2 (Lindsey Graham) are referenced to illustrate mainstream political support for regime change and the belief that the plan is underway, with Graham saying it would be the biggest change in the Middle East in a thousand years if successful. Pompeo is shown as publicly celebrating Mossad agents “beside them.” Stubtack downplays Graham’s credibility but emphasizes Pompeo’s statements as the more consequential evidence. In discussing current capabilities and risks, Stubtack notes that American combat power in the region has diminished since June 2025, though the U.S. could still strike. He emphasizes that Iranian ballistic missiles, which became more effective later in the June 12-day war, could overwhelm defenses, and that Iran has threatened retaliation against both Israel and U.S. bases. He highlights three key deterrents: Iran shutting down the Straits of Hormuz, the limited ability of U.S. and Israeli defenses to stop Iranian missiles from hitting Israel, and the question of what military action would actually achieve—arguing that past strikes would likely rally the Iranian population and fail to produce regime change. Stubtack contends the four-point plan has failed in practice, making continued military action a cockamamie idea. He suggests the real aim for the United States and Israel is to wreck Iran and break it apart, similar to their approach in Syria, rather than to foster liberal democracy. He argues the Israelis are committed to eradicating serious threats to their existence, and that the United States and Israel operate as a tag team in the region. On diplomacy, Stubtack posits that a negotiated deal could be possible—resembling the JCPOA in preventing Iran from weaponizing its enrichment program and allowing for improved relations with both Israel and the United States—though he stresses Iran would not abandon enrichment entirely and would resist giving up nuclear capabilities completely. He notes that even with diplomacy, Iran and Israel might still have tensions, but a workable modus vivendi could exist. Looking ahead five years, Stubtack predicts the regime will likely remain in place in Iran, Israel will likely be more hawkish, and the United States will stay closely aligned with Israel. He suggests Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah will persist as threats, and questions whether Iran will acquire nuclear weapons—arguing that if Iran had them earlier, U.S. and Israeli pressure might have been different. He leaves open the possibility of diplomacy but remains skeptical of a peaceful, full resolution in the near term.

Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 discuss the current wave of protests in Iran and how it differs from past unrest, with a focus on causes, dynamics, and potential outcomes. - The protests are described as the strongest since 2022, sparked by economic distress and currency collapse. The immediate trigger was the volatility of the rial and the impact on bazaar merchants, who closed shops in Tehran and took to the streets, followed by university campuses and other cities. Youth participation has increased, with some behaving more courageously on the streets. - A key new element is the explicit rejection of the Islamic government. For the first time, crowds are reportedly shouting that they do not want this Islamic government or the regime of the supreme leader, and they are calling for change rather than merely better elections. There is also increasing mention of Reza Pahlavi (the former Shah’s son) as a symbol in chants, though the speakers caution that this does not necessarily reflect broad support for his leadership or a viable path to democracy. - The discussion notes a sustained gap between the regime and the Iranian people that has widened over two decades. The regime has failed to narrow this divide, especially among the younger, educated generation. The political system’s structure—where the supreme leader appoints half the Guardian Council and thus shapes presidential candidates—has contributed to this rift. The trend toward questioning the regime’s legitimacy contrasts with earlier protests, where calls to overthrow the regime were less explicit. - Differences from previous protests (2007, 2009, 2019, 2022) are highlighted: - Past protests rarely called for overthrow; current protests openly reject the Islamic government and the supreme leader. - There is a notable Kurdish involvement this time, though the degree and regional participation vary, and some Kurdish communities may be wary due to positions taken by monarchist factions and the regime’s stance on minority rights. - The protests are spreading from major cities to smaller towns and include diverse regions of the country. - Foreign influence and potential intervention: - Trump’s warnings to the regime are considered to have had some impact on Iranian youth, though the extent is unclear and cannot be measured without data. - There is debate about potential US cyber or military actions; the guest believes it would be difficult and risky, especially if a broader confrontation with the US and Israel occurred. He warns that foreign intervention could feed regime propaganda that protests are foreign-instigated. - Israel’s involvement is likewise seen as dangerous and potentially counterproductive, risking the perception of foreign manipulation and nationalistic backlash. - Internal security dynamics: - The relationship between the IRGC and the regular army is discussed as potentially fragile. A split, internal defections, or civil conflict within security forces could become an “Achilles heel” for the regime, though such scenarios are described as extreme and not imminent. - There is concern about what would happen after a regime change. The speaker argues that there is currently no robust, organized opposition with a clear program for governance post-overthrow, and monarchist groups around Reza Pahlavi may not represent a democratic alternative. The risk of chaos without a viable plan is highlighted. - The host and guest discuss personal risk and motivations: - The professor recounts his history of arrests under both the Shah and the Islamic regime, including a sentence to 18 months for criticizing the nuclear program, followed by a two-month prison term due to health concerns. He describes a cancer diagnosis and his relief at advances in cancer treatment, while noting that his health remains a concern. - He emphasizes that he does not support Trump or Netanyahu's positions and that his willingness to speak publicly stems from concern about Iran’s future, not alignment with foreign powers. - Final themes: - The protests reflect long-standing grievances but reveal a new willingness to reject the regime itself. - Questions remain about leadership, governance after potential regime change, minority rights, and the risk of civil conflict if the regime collapses or is weakened. - The discussion closes with acknowledgments of the personal risk involved in speaking out and a nuanced stance toward foreign involvement.