reSee.it - Related Video Feed

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

Professor Jeffrey Sachs discusses the Israel-Iran conflict, the risk of nuclear escalation, and a pathway to end the war. He clarifies that David Sacks is not related to him and was speaking as a Trump adviser, advocating that Trump declare victory and stop the conflict to avoid deeper disaster. Sachs outlines the economic and strategic dangers: the Strait of Hormuz could be closed, 400 million barrels released from reserves would cover only about twenty days of normal oil flow, and ongoing tit-for-tat strikes are destroying energy infrastructure, increasing global calamity risk. Sachs recounts the five-step framework he and Sybil Ferris proposed to end the conflict, which he attributes to a need to recognize all security interests and to reduce aggression against Iran. He emphasizes that the US and Israel’s escalation harms Israel, the US, Iran, and regional stability. The five steps are: 1) Stop brazen, illegal armed aggression against Iran and recognize Iran’s security interests, noting that Iran does not want a nuclear weapon and had adhered to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) until the US ripped it up in 2018. Iran reportedly wants negotiated oversight under UN scrutiny, and the plan’s collapse is linked to broader regional violence. 2) Acknowledge Iran’s desire not to develop nuclear weapons and acknowledge the JCPOA’s original framework, highlighting that Iran’s leadership signaled a preference for negotiation under international inspection, contrary to the perception that Tehran seeks to acquire a weapon. 3) Open the Strait of Hormuz through Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iran, with Gulf states reasserting sovereignty over military bases on their soil and pledging that bases will not be used for aggression against Iran. The Gulf states and Iran should negotiate bilaterally to ensure open trade routes, with regional solidarity in backing this approach. 4) Return Israel to its 06/04/1967 borders, creating a Palestinian state in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem on internationally recognized borders. Sachs argues this addresses the root cause of continual conflict and links it to Netanyahu’s policy of denying a Palestinian state and pursuing broader regional control. 5) Establish a state of Palestine within the UN (as the 194th member) so that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups are disarmed, with disarmament supported by the regional consensus and the UN Security Council, contingent on Palestinian statehood. Sachs asserts that what blocks peace is a coalition of Israeli supremacism, Israeli apartheid, and US support for aggressive actions. He references the Likud ideology and the historical “clean break” doctrine, noting that the US veto in the UN Security Council has repeatedly blocked recognition of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Speaker 0 adds a discussion on indivisible security versus hegemonic peace, arguing that true security must be indivisible and that hegemonic peace—enforcing dominance—has led to the current crises in both the Middle East and Ukraine. Sachs agrees that the delusion of overwhelming force undermines security and highlights parallel dynamics in Taiwan and Russia. Finally, they address why Iran was underestimated: the U.S. has pursued a self-created reality approach, leading to improvisation and escalation without a coherent planning process. Sachs criticizes the American security establishment for improvisation, lack of careful analysis, and dependence on a hegemonic approach, suggesting that this mindset increases the risk of miscalculation and escalation. The conversation ends with acknowledging the late hour in Kuala Lumpur and expressing thanks.

Ashwin Rutansi hosts New Order from a global vantage on how the West Asia conflict and its disruption to energy routes are reshaping the India-led global South. He notes the Trump-Netanyahu war in Iran and its ripple effects: thousands killed, over a million displaced, and billions impoverished by higher energy and commodity prices as supply lines through the Strait of Hormuz tighten. He highlights India’s external affairs minister Jaishankar visiting the UAE to stress the urgency for New Delhi as it navigates a multipolar world. The program then centers on the attack on the oil tanker Safe Sea Vishnu on March 11 in Iraqi waters, carrying around 50,000 tons of oil. Doctor Anjan (the speaker) describes it as a calibrated, inside-territorial-water attack, not just a drone or missile strike. He notes a speedboat mapped the attack beforehand, the operation conducted on an unmanned vessel, and the possible involvement or at least facilitation by the host country. He emphasizes there was no reported activity from Iraq’s coast guards after the incident, and he urges investigations by international bodies including the UN, IMO, and guardian maritime bodies. He explicitly states there was no indication of targeting based on UN or World Food Program associations, but attributes motive to a US-national ultimate beneficiary owner. Anjan explains the wider shipping crisis: about 800 ships are stuck in the Strait of Hormuz, with roughly 16,000 crew members affected, potentially including around 8,000 Indian seafarers. He questions IMO’s effectiveness as “guardian of the maritime industry,” asking who is protecting the more than 16,000 civilians at sea and why a robust response from international bodies has not materialized. He contrasts the ceasefire with ongoing threats and warns of food and water shortages for crews if peace remains elusive. He challenges why the UN’s leadership and IMO have not mobilized more forcefully and suggests a broader South- and BRICS-led approach to maritime security. In discussing geopolitics and logistics, Anjan mentions Bandar Abbas and Chabahar Port as strategically significant for energy and regional trade. He notes US and Israeli strikes on these hubs and acknowledges India’s historic plans to develop Chabahar, which have slowed recently, raising questions about reactivation and peace-building roles. He argues that the entire Global South could benefit from activated regional corridors, and he suggests BRICS could contribute—by strengthening IMO authority and pursuing practical, multi-lateral security measures to safeguard navigation and prevent humanitarian crises at sea. He also critiques the WTO and western-dominated mechanisms, implying that Beijing and Moscow’s stance on global trade norms is complex and that BRICS could offer alternative pathways for peacemaking and economic resilience. During the break, Zara Khan fields audience questions. They touch on Turkey’s likely role, China and Russia’s stance toward WTO norms and Western hegemony, BRICS’ centrality in peacemaking, and Pakistan’s active role despite not being a BRICS member. The discussion returns to the broader question: how shipping, energy security, and global governance will evolve in this “new order,” and what Delhi’s BRICS agenda should emphasize as India chairs BRICS. The show closes inviting feedback on whether rising living costs from the war will spur political upheaval worldwide.

The speaker said that economic pain from the US-Israeli war against Iran will reach the United States later than much of the rest of the world, with economists explaining the reasons. They pointed to India as one of the first countries to be hit hard, citing Prime Minister Modi’s recent trip to Israel and his long support for Netanyahu and the Israeli regime. Despite this political alignment, India suffered soon after the war began. The speaker attributed India’s early economic impact to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which they said was almost from day one of the war closed “to most countries” in the Persian Gulf that participated in the war alongside the United States. They said Indians experienced shortages of fuel and high prices, and noted that India remains largely poor even though it has high growth and a segment of society doing well. They said many Indians are in the agricultural sector, and that alongside rising fuel and LNG costs and shortages, fertilizers became very expensive, becoming a major issue. They said this kind of problem is increasingly affecting people worldwide. For the United States, they said the near-term impact is mostly inflation, but that when strategic reserves empty, shortages will emerge not only for oil and heavy oil but also for other goods in the US economy. They stated that it is believed that by the end of June the degree of the crisis will become more evident to ordinary Americans. They concluded that whether people are in Uganda, Argentina, India, or elsewhere, they are paying the price for the war. They added that the Israeli regime has already lost a lot of global public support, saying people increasingly dislike the regime, and that global economic problems being attributed to the war will worsen the situation for Americans and Israelis.

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

Mario: Daniel, after decades of diplomacy, the Middle East is now at war. Early on you suggested Hormuz and economic leverage; as the conflict evolved, US ground invasion talk, targeted Iranian leadership, and new developments—like JD Vance’s reaction to US intel and Israel striking energy infrastructure in Iran—have shaped concerns that Israel wields outsized influence. Broad question: how did we get here and why? Daniel: There’s a long history of American and Israeli influence in play. There is American agency and a geopolitical logic tying chokepoints like Hormuz to broader aims, such as reasserting US primacy vis-à-vis China. But this doesn’t fully explain how the last 10 yards into war were crossed. Netanyahu’s long effort to shape a strategic environment culminated when he found a president open to using American power in the region. Israel’s strategy appears to be to assert greater regional dominion by leveraging US military power and creating dependencies with Gulf states. Netanyahu reportedly offered the president an actionable plan, including on-the-ground assets, to decapitate Iran’s leadership and spark a broader upheaval, which helped push the White House toward a twelve-day war in June. Israel also presented a narrative of rapid US escalation to secure its aims, while the American interagency process—though deteriorated in recent years—had to interpret unusually aggressive, yet selective, Israeli intelligence and objectives. The result is a complex dynamic where US rhetoric and decisions are deeply entangled with Israeli designs for regional hegemony, an outcome that was not broadly anticipated by many regional partners. Mario: If the US administration had not fully understood Israel’s project, how did this come to pass? And how does Mossad factor in? Daniel: Israel has tremendous access to influence over an American administration through lobbying, media echo chambers, and political finance, which Netanyahu exploited to drive a course toward major confrontation with Iran. Before Trump’s term, Netanyahu was nervous about a president who could pivot against allies; he devised a strategy that culminated in Operation Midnight Hammer and subsequent US-Israeli collaboration, reinforced by the possibility of rapid decapitation of Iran’s leadership. There are reports (and debates) about Mossad presenting on-the-ground assets and the possibility of instigating a street revolution in Iran, which may not have been fully believed by Washington but was persuasive enough to shape policy. The question remains how much of Israeli intelligence makes it to Trump and his inner circle, especially given concerns about cognitive ability and decision-making in the White House at that time. Netanyahu’s aim, according to Daniel, was not simply to topple Iran but to maximize Israel’s regional leverage by using American power while reducing other regional peers’ influence. Mario: What about Gulf states and broader regional realignments? How did the Gulf respond, and what does this mean for their security calculus? Daniel: The Gulf states face a stark dilemma. They fear Iran's retaliatory capabilities but also distrust America’s consistency and question whether US support will be cost-effective. Iran’s strikes into the Gulf have forced Gulf capitals to reassess their reliance on US protection and Israel’s influence, particularly given Israel’s aggressive posture and expanded regional footprint—Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza—with potential implications for the Gulf’s own security and economic interests. Some Gulf actors worry about over-dependence on American security assurances while Israel intensifies operational reach. The GCC’s calculus is shifting: they confront a choice between continuing alignment with the US-Israel bloc or seeking more independent security arrangements. The possibility of a broader Gulf-Israel axis, or at least closer coordination, is tempered by concerns over long-term regional stability, public opinion, and the risk of escalation. Mario: How has this affected perceptions of Iran, Israel, and the broader regional order? Has the Gulf’s stance shifted? Daniel: The region’s balance has been unsettled. Iran’s actions have damaged Gulf trust in its neighbors’ security guarantees, while Israel’s aggressive posture and reliance on US power have complicated Gulf states’ calculations. Turkey’s role is pivotal as it balances concerns about Iran and Israel, while also watching how the region realigns. The possibility of a future where Iran’s power is weakened is weighed against the risk of destabilization and long-term security costs. Negotiations between the US, Iran, and regional actors—stoked by Turkish diplomacy and shifting Gulf positions—are ongoing, with Turkey signaling that diplomacy remains important, even as Gulf states reassess their security dependencies. Mario: What about Lebanon and Hezbollah, and the potential for broader spillover? Daniel: Lebanon faces severe consequences: displacement, civilian harm, and a domestic political paralysis that complicates relations with Israel. Hezbollah remains a factor, with ongoing tensions in Lebanon and the South. Israel’s goal of establishing security-control in Lebanon risks reigniting long-standing conflicts, while Lebanon’s government seeks a balance that could prevent further escalation, if possible. The broader picture is that Israel’s approach—driven by a perceived need to neutralize Iran and all potential threats—could provoke wider regional blowback, complicating already fragile domestic politics across the Levant. Mario: Final thoughts as the war unfolds? Daniel: Israel’s strategic ambitions appear to extend beyond countering Iran to shaping a broader order in which it remains the dominant regional power, aided by US military leverage. Gulf states face a difficult reorientation, reassessing longstanding alliances in light of perceptions of US reliability. The coming months will reveal whether regional actors can recalibrate toward diplomatic resolutions or wind up in a deeper, more protracted conflict. The question remains whether a political path could replace military escalation, and whether external powers can deter further aggression and stabilize the region without allowing a broader conflagration.

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

In a discussion with Glenn (Speaker 0) and Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Speaker 1), the speakers analyze the current Iran war in the context of a shifting world order. Sachs argues that two things are unfolding simultaneously: the erratic behavior of the United States (personalized in Donald Trump) and the broader question of American hegemony, alongside battlefield realities that challenge the claims of “shock and awe” and irreversible American victory. Key points raised: - The US, under Trump, exhibits “brazenness, lawlessness, the viciousness” in rhetoric and actions, including a statement about sending Iran back to the stone age. Netanyahu’s speech is described as equally shocking, with Netanyahu portraying himself in a biblical, godlike framing and extending “10 plagues” to Iran. - On the battlefield, the idea that American power guarantees victory is questioned. Counterattacks in Israel and the Gulf region have occurred, downing American jets and showing Iranian retaliatory capability and waning missile defense. This challenges the notion that US military supremacy is unassailable. - Sachs notes a stark contrast in public opinion: in the United States, there is widespread opposition to the war; in Israel, the public appears to largely support the war and the associated violence. - He characterizes the conflict as one driven by a “war of whim” with unclear aims, and asserts that the claimed U.S. “shock and awe” does not align with the observed battlefield and morale realities. - Beyond Iraq/Iran, Sachs discusses broader structural factors: American hegemony is pursued as a policy objective but often unfulfillable; the military-industrial complex and figures like Trump contribute to the propulsion of war; personal traits of leaders (described as psychologically unstable by some forensic psychiatrists) influence decision-making. - A possible path toward de-escalation, according to Sachs, hinges on dialogue among global peers. He suggests that Trump listens to leaders he regards as peers (Putin, Xi, Modi) and that these leaders need to tell him to stop, though he remains skeptical whether this would be sufficient. - Sachs emphasizes a multipolar world as the reality: countries should avoid hosting US bases, which he argues undermine sovereignty and security. He advocates neighbors engaging with one another, cooperation with major powers (China, Russia, India), and reducing dependence on the United States. - He critiques Western and European reliance on US leadership, noting that Europe’s internal politics still echo imperial mindsets and that NATO’s expansion and anti-Russia policies have complicated security. He argues that European and Gulf leaders often pursue “peace through strength” rather than genuine diplomacy. - Specific regional advice includes: be wary of US hegemonic guarantees; avoid dividing lines that empower a hegemon; pursue regional engagement (GCC-Iran dialogue) and view China, Russia, and India as potential partners rather than adversaries; understand that technologies (AI, data centers, chips) are not substitutes for credible security. Towards the end, Sachs reiterates that the current approach is producing insecurity and economic crisis, urging readers to adjust to a multipolar reality and to seek regional cooperation over reliance on US dominance. He closes by expressing the hope that governments will embrace reason and adapt to current realities.

Ashwin Rifansi discusses New Order’s focus on how India and its allies sit at the center of a shifting global order, noting that the West Asia conflict involving Trump, Netanyahu, Iran, and Lebanon has repeatedly broken ceasefires and that Pakistan publicly thanked Trump for de-escalation efforts before its consulate in Peshawar was shut down as the US deemed the location too dangerous. New Delhi is about to host the BRICS foreign ministers meeting, with Iran likely sending its deputy foreign minister. India’s chair aims to balance Gulf energy ties with a broader multi-aligned strategy, positioning it as the broker able to keep competing sides in the same room. The last BRICS meeting failed to reach consensus; this time the stakes are higher, divisions sharper, and billions hinge on deli decisions. The question posed is whether this emergent order can hold together or reconcile internal contradictions. Professor Richard Wolff, a prominent economist, joins to discuss who pays for the Trump–Netanyahu war. Wolff identifies the cost as ultimately borne by a combination of American taxpayers and the global community that finances the war through borrowing. He says the government relies more on borrowed money than on taxes, noting that an explicit tax burden on American families would be politically unsustainable, while the bill is effectively deferred to future generations. He points out that parts of the global South are lending to the US to finance the war, citing that Japan is the largest creditor to the United States, with China as the second-largest, while the US remains the world’s largest debtor. Wolff explains that the crisis of supply lines stems from long-standing corporate decisions since the 1970s to relocate manufacturing abroad for profitability, particularly to China. He argues politicians—including Trump—present the narrative as if foreigners (China, India, Brazil) forced these changes, thereby portraying the US as a victim rather than the perpetrator. This framing disguises the revenue gains American capital reaped from overseas production, which in turn produced long supply lines as goods must travel back to markets. The discussion emphasizes the strategic political use of this narrative to manage domestic anger at lost jobs and wages. The conversation then turns to potential futures for supply chains and localized production. Wolff suggests that global factors push toward localization and diversification of production within the United States and BRICS countries, with the Hormuz Strait being a model for potential disruptions elsewhere (e.g., the Malacca Strait). He predicts a major, long-term reorganization of where production happens and how the global economy is organized, arguing the conflict could catalyze a renaissance of regionalized or localized production, even if not immediately after the current war. On the political economy side, Wolff notes that Trump’s political support is shrinking outside the extreme right and the business elite who benefit from his tax policies and fossil-fuel ties. He warns that if the Iran confrontation undermines Trump’s ability to assert U.S. power, oligarchic support could wane, threatening his presidency. Wolff also forecasts that the defense budget under discussion—proposed to rise from about $900 billion to $1.5 trillion—would far outpace any social program cuts, intensifying pressure on workers who are already relying on food stamps and other supports. The discussion touches on the global South’s response to a declining U.S. empire, including potential non-dollar settlements and the challenges of unwinding dollar-denominated debt. Wolff notes the dollar is weaker but remains central; the process toward a multi-currency system is gradual. He observes that global South students are increasingly looking elsewhere for education and investment, signaling a broader trend away from the United States as a safe or dominant hub for capital. The program closes with questions about the Quad and ASEAN’s roles, and whether India should stay in the Quad. Wolff’s perspective frames a dynamic, multi-polar trajectory as BRICS and other blocs potentially gain influence in the face of U.S. decline. The show teases a future discussion with Khan about how viewers can engage with these questions.

Ashwin Rutansi introduces New Order, a global show tracing how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. The program aims to explore partnerships, shifting alliances, and how structural changes ripple from global powers to streets, villages, markets, and boardrooms. The show promises to examine diplomatic architecture, networks of power, money flows, and levers of influence, presenting a fundamental reordering rather than mere turbulence. Zara Khan will join later to field viewer questions. Guest: John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago professor and coauthor of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. The discussion opens with the recent incident of Iran firing missiles at an F-35 and what it implies given anticipated US and allied arms purchases. Mearsheimer notes that aircraft over adversary territory face real risks from surface-to-air missiles and air defenses, even if the US and Israel have degraded Iran’s defenses. He suggests this is a factor behind why the US and Israel refrain from flying over Iran. Geopolitical framing: Who benefits from the ongoing war (in Iran) at the time of the interview? Mearsheimer identifies two clear winners: Russia and China. Russia benefits from sanctions relief on oil and gas pushed by Trump-era policies, and the war diverts munitions away from Ukraine, aiding Russia in its position. China gains as US credibility in foreign policy deteriorates, increasing its influence in the Middle East and globally as nations worry about an unreliable US, with Europe showing signs of leaning toward China. India’s position is discussed as a potential loser in this new order. The discussion asserts that India’s relations with Israel and Iran, and its ties to both the US and the Gulf, place it in a precarious position. The possibility of a summit or peace conference is deemed unlikely to solve inflation, gas prices, fertilizer costs, or Indian food production challenges; the war is characterized as bad news for India, as reflected in Indian media. On US policy and the Israel lobby: Mearsheimer contends that the Israel lobby has significant influence over US foreign policy and that its role in dragging the United States into wars, including Iraq in 2003, was central. He notes with some irony that the lobby’s power is increasingly in the open, referencing Joe Kent’s statements and public figures like Tucker Carlson and Bernie Sanders endorsing similar criticisms. He points to Francesca Albanese, UN official on Palestinian territories, describing the Israeli actions in Gaza as genocidal, and notes the lobby’s efforts to undermine her career. Policy advice for the Global South, focusing on India: Mearsheimer argues that India should maintain distance from excessive US alignment to avoid heavy leverage over Indian policy. He suggests speaking up against US policy when it harms national interests but avoiding becoming overly dependent on the United States. He cites examples such as Indonesia where maintaining friendly ties with China while balancing US relations would be prudent. He warns that excessive closeness to the US invites sanctions and pain, whereas diversifying partnerships could reduce vulnerability. BRICS and multipolarity: The war could benefit BRICS and the Global South, with Russia and China gaining, while some BRICS members like India and possibly Indonesia could suffer. The conflict may prompt a strategic rethinking of US ties, encouraging greater independence from Washington. The discussion also touches on Europe’s economic strain and NATO’s perceived setback if Russia prevails in Ukraine, describing a “double whammy” for European leadership from the Gulf conflict alongside Ukraine. End of interview: The program teases future exploration of the Israel lobby’s influence and the potential for a broader discussion on the end of the Israel lobby era, followed by viewer questions. Zara Khan presents questions from the audience, including whether the broader humanity will gain a say on the world stage and how the Iran war might differ from Vietnam and Afghanistan, emphasizing asymmetrical warfare and the risk of ground involvement. The show signs off, inviting viewers to follow and watch future episodes.

A war against Iran could disrupt not only Iranian oil supply, but all supply from the Persian Gulf countries. It could also disrupt China's Belt and Road Initiative and obstruct Russia's international North-South transportation corridor, where Iran, India, and Russia are key nodes. Energy prices could skyrocket, markets could crash, and supply chains could collapse. Some Gulf countries don't want this to happen. Trump's attacks on Yemen make Abu Dhabi and Riyadh vulnerable to Yemen escalating against these countries. There isn't a global actor except Netanyahu in Israel who wants war with Iran.

Ashton Rutansi introduces New Order’s first season finale, arguing that India and its allies sit at the center of a wider transformation in world history as conflicts and geopolitical pressure spread beyond West Asia. Rutansi describes the BRICS foreign ministers meeting in Delhi under India’s 2026 chairmanship, with senior officials from the UAE, China, Russia, and Iran in attendance. He also links India’s diplomacy—Prime Minister Modi touring the UAE and Europe—with the need to balance energy security, trade stability, Western partnerships, and global South leadership. Rutansi frames the situation as sensitive due to Iran’s demands for stronger BRICS political backing against US and Israeli violations of the UN Charter, amid Saudi Arabia and the UAE attempting to avoid direct confrontation. Rutansi interviews international relations scholar Professor Richard Sakwa. Asked whether a unipolar order is ending in real time, Sakwa says the unipolar model has been on its way out and is giving way to unilateralism in the United States, producing what he calls the “twilight” of the Atlantic/Political West. He argues that multipolarity is only a symptom and that the alternative model aligns with UN norms, international law, and the post-1945 international system, which he says the Political West challenged while it still held power. On global war, Sakwa says the Russo-Ukrainian war has become a Russo-European war and Europe is experiencing “war fever,” comparing the language to the atmosphere before World War I. He says commentators argue the West is in the thick of it, but that “we’re only in the foothills,” and that the global South has more balanced talk. Rutansi highlights European resistance to diplomacy and questions the impact of weapons and sanctions. Sakwa says the EU is adopting its twentieth sanctions package and working on a twenty-first, noting they are running out of “things to sanction” but “digging and digging their heels in.” He adds that US sanctions under Trump after an Alaska meeting in August 2025 affected Russian oil exports and deeply impacted India, while sanctions dependence persists. Sakwa responds that many countries, including China, can withstand tariffs and sanctions; he contrasts China’s scale with India’s vulnerability given reliance on imported oil, including from the Gulf. He notes Russia’s survival under heavy sanctions while taking a “very heavy toll.” On whether India exemplifies successful multipolar power, Sakwa is skeptical of the term multipolarity and argues the UN Charter system and postwar decolonization have matured into a “multiplex world,” where many states—including middle powers such as Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, the Philippines, Indonesia, and others—refuse being “bossed around” by a traditional hegemon. He emphasizes that international organizations and corporations also function as quasi-state actors, and he argues Western arrogance about being hegemonic has not matured. Rutansi raises criticism that the UN has struggled to act during a Gaza genocide and discusses an alleged UN leadership role of Annalena Baerbock. Sakwa calls the UN’s crisis its most desperate stage since 1945, argues that the solution is to double down to support the UN rather than dismiss it, and says India should be an essential permanent member. He also suggests resetting elements of the UN system by adding Brazil, India, and other countries—especially Africa—as permanent Security Council members. Later, Sakwa discusses NATO and US participation, saying the United States has historically retained autonomy and that Trump has left dozens of international organizations, including UN agencies such as the World Health Organization. Sakwa says the US “go[es] it alone,” meeting China as equals and that US-India relations have faced the most difficult period in decades amid sanctions and threats. Rutansi asks about whether human rights “weaponization” will continue, including references to freedom of expression in Western Europe and Sakwa’s detention at Heathrow on June 13, 2025. Sakwa says he was detained under the 2019 Counterterrorism Act and that refusing to answer or saying “no comment” could be taken as indicating guilt, allowing arrest. He describes questioning as a “fishing expedition,” says his views are open to debate, and says the case later went quiet. Sakwa argues that Western Europe exhibits groupthink, permanent war, militarism, remilitarization, and “profound Russophobia,” and he says global South countries increasingly treat US and European actions with contempt. He also argues secondary sanctions are irresponsible and illegal, and that attempts to defend international law by undermining it create double standards. The show then shifts to viewer questions via Zara Khan (Azarakan). One asks how to stop the US and Israel from mass killings; Khan and Rutansi respond by identifying complicit states and supply chain links, including countries Rutansi lists as providing Israeli weaponry, warplane components, and related support. Another asks what alternative security architectures India should prioritize in the Indian Ocean if it exits the Quad; Rutansi says India could expand cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, strengthen a Russia-India-China format (RIC) as a possible “new quad,” and consider strengthening the North South transit corridor involving India, Russia, and Iran. Rutansi closes by asking viewers: how India and the global South should deal with Western Europe’s war fever against Russia.

Afshun Ratanjee hosts New Order, examining how the global South is navigating a more fragmented world shaped by West Asia tensions, disrupted trade corridors, volatile energy markets, and a realignment of power. She notes the Trump-Netanyahu war in West Asia has killed, wounded, or displaced millions and is reshaping the global economy in real time. China, as the largest buyer of Iranian oil, warns against U.S. escalation, while Russia’s Lavrov is shown as helping China with energy shortfalls. Modi and Trump spoke for forty minutes in what is described as reflecting India’s delicate diplomatic balancing act as India prepares to host a BRICS foreign ministers meeting in New Delhi, with Lavrov and Wang Yi expected to attend. The BRICS gathering will test India’s 2026 presidency amid the West Asian war. April 19 marks fourteen years since India tested the Agni five missile, underscoring a world of renewed great power tension, deterrence, alignment, and active strategic choices. The program then turns to an interview with Colonel Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff at the U.S. State Department, live from Virginia. The discussion centers on a BRICS dimension to the conflict and a provocative claim that Trump may be a tactical mastermind. Wilkerson cautions that he does not think Trump “even hints at this” and suggests the actions are orchestrated by others behind the scenes, potentially inside the Pentagon, who aim to exploit crises (including Ukraine, Arctic tensions, and the Baltic) to confront China and use a southern rail corridor as an opportunity. The bombing of the China–Iran railway is discussed as an action with potentially strategic aims, though Wilkerson emphasizes China’s inertia and preference not to disrupt a successful overland route that could shift Asia–Europe trade onto land routes, reducing reliance on maritime chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz. Wilkerson explains China’s strategy of building overland railways to divert commerce from sea routes, arguing this would reduce costs and increase security, and notes China’s rail networks and pipelines tie into a broader aim to move significant commerce into Europe via faster land routes. He mentions Saudi Arabia reconfiguring its pipeline plans to move north through Turkey and Syria, altering traditional transshipment dynamics and potentially diminishing Hormuz’s importance. He argues Russia will supply energy if needed, and asserts a long-term Caspian Sea supply base, with LNG and petroleum waiting to be tapped, potentially outside U.S. reach. Iran, he contends, is well-placed to resist pressure and may avoid major strategic losses, while Israel’s position in Lebanon appears precarious as Hezbollah gains influence. Regarding U.S. policy, Wilkerson argues that Trump’s behavior is driven by political savvy and a desire to claim victory, while Netanyahu pursues Lebanon policies that may backfire. He advises global South foreign ministers to maintain their course and not disrupt their advantages, highlighting BRICS as a growing, profitable alternative hub for renewables and advanced technologies, including EVs and batteries. He cites Xi Jinping’s push to replace the dollar with the renminbi in world trade, the removal of SWIFT sanctions, and China’s aim to shift financial power away from the United States, which he says has imposed sanctions responsible for millions of deaths, per a controversial statistic. Back from the break, the program returns to questions from viewers, including how BRICS should respond to Trump’s blockade claims and whether America is becoming a theocracy. The hosts emphasize that global South populations oppose the Trump–Netanyahu war and highlight the potential BRICS expansion as a counterweight to U.S. hegemony, with attention to the broader two existential global challenges: nuclear weapons without treaties and the climate crisis. The show closes with a prompt for audience participation on whether Iran should pursue a nuclear deterrent similar to North Korea and a teaser for next week’s episode.

- The discussion opens with trying to map a post-war world, considering both a quick end to the war and a prolonged one, with a focus on US–China relations, US allies, Iran, and the broader region. A participant notes a broader battle between a China–Russia–Iran alignment and the Western alliance, including financial systems. - A major regional shift is already underway: by 2000, the top banks were dominated by Japanese and European players; by 2025, China dominates the top four banks. The speaker argues that power is moving from Western banks to China, and that countries with US-dollar-denominated debt are converting debt into renminbi because it’s cheaper. - In the last week, Russia and China signaled to Iran a push to revisit the Gulf security architecture. Putin spoke to Iraq about Gulf security; Wang Yi did the same. The implied shift is toward a Gulf security framework less dependent on US protection. - The current Gulf security model is described as US bases guaranteeing protection from Iran, coupled with a demand that recipient states buy US Treasuries and military equipment. The speakers argue this model left Gulf states vulnerable and exposed as US defense systems failed to prevent Iranian attacks in the recent episode. - Saudi Arabia and Qatar (and to a lesser extent the UAE) are discussed as potentially moving away from the United States toward Russia and China. A Pakistani ISI general reportedly said Saudi and Qatari leaders are breaking from the US; one NBC report cited Trump canceling Project Freedom due to Saudi resistance to air operations from Prince Saud Air Base. The implication is a Persian Gulf broadly shifting into the Russian–Chinese sphere, potentially altering Gulf financial flows away from the US dollar toward gold and the yuan. - An opposing view, aired by another economist, suggests the US will strengthen its deterrence in the Gulf, with UAE as an indicator. The counterpoint argues that the Gulf countries previously supported Iran’s adversaries, including indirect funding for attacks on Iran, implying US deterrence remains necessary. - The conversation emphasizes the gulf’s deterrence history: Iran has largely avoided offensive military action in the Gulf against the region, while Gulf states have relied on US protection. The lack of a robust Chinese or Russian security guarantee in the region is highlighted as a real risk to Gulf security calculations. - There is a debate about whether US military power remains credible. One participant argues the US has not won a major war since World War II, with recent actions described as limited or draw outcomes; another contends that US protection remains essential despite past failures, given Iran’s capabilities and history. - Military-strategy discussions cover the feasibility of a ground invasion vs. airstrike-only approaches. The speakers outline logistical challenges (water, supply lines, mountainous terrain) and the scale of forces needed (potentially large, multi-month training and buildup) to degrade Iran’s missile and drone capabilities. Arguments are made that holding the Strait of Hormuz would be difficult if Iran can still launch missiles and drones from interior positions. - The strategic importance of Gulf exports is quantified: Gulf oil about 32% of world supply; LNG around 20% (centered on Qatar and the Gulf), urea and sulfur for agriculture and industry (urea ~36%; sulfur for refining and semiconductors), and helium from Qatar at about 33%. Keeping the Gulf open is framed as essential to global energy, inflation, and agriculture. - A possible pathway to open the Hormuz is proposed: Iran could offer broad access to global markets except for countries allied with Israel or those that attacked Iran; Iran would leverage this to restart global flows, particularly to Asia. The idea is that a near-term crisis could force a negotiated settlement with Iran. - The timeline mentions a forthcoming peace negotiation in Beijing next week, with skepticism about it proceeding smoothly. If negotiations occur, Trump would not likely receive a warm reception due to recent sanctions and US actions against China; China has signaled resolve against US sanctions, instructing its companies not to acquiesce to pressure. - Overall, the dialogue frames the war as a potential catalyst for a broader realignment: power shifting toward China and Russia, a Gulf region hedging its security through new alliances, and the global economy recalibrating around yuan- and gold-based financial flows, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a central strategic chokepoint.

Afshan Rutansi hosts New Order, a program touting a global view of how India and its allies sit at the center of a transformation in world history. The episode centers on the Trump administration’s war against Iran and its wider regional and global consequences, claiming the conflict has killed, wounded, or displaced over a million people from Iran to Lebanon to the South Caucasus, with the global South paying for shortages of fertilizer, fuel, food, and medicines as the Strait of Hormuz is mined and contested. The discussion also touches on Iran’s targeting of Israel’s nuclear program and Israel’s targeting of Iran’s nuclear reactor, and references the IEA’s view that Trump-era energy crises are worse than the 1970s oil shocks. The panel notes Pakistan’s perceived threat after Iran, and a claim by a former US DNI that Pakistan might be a concern if the US touches its WMD program. India, as this year’s chair of BRICS, says it will not broker peace between the USA and Iran. Dennis Kucinich, a former US congressman from Ohio who gave 155 speeches in the US Congress against war with Iran, joins the show. He has run for the Democratic presidential nomination twice and led RFK Jr.’s 2024 campaign. He describes the war as a “catastrophe, a circus of miscalculation,” and says Iran could be “the graveyard of the American empire.” He criticizes the US for bombing Iran while negotiations were ongoing, killing a negotiator and, with Israel, continuing bombing, and notes the death toll approaching 2,000 Iranians. He asserts that the USInduced negotiations to give up enriched uranium were under way, then bombed Iran, undermining diplomacy. He states there was “no imminent threat,” citing testimony by Joe Kent, a former official in the directorate of national intelligence, who resigned and described the threat as non-existent, and argues that the US strategy is to dominate the Middle East’s energy, currency, and trade. Kucinich argues that the war has led to higher oil and LNG prices, greater military spending in the Gulf, more fragile shipping routes, and increasing alignments with Iran and anti-western economic partners. He contends the global South bears a disproportionate burden from higher food, fuel, and grain prices, and that ordinary Americans are affected as well. He rejects the idea of neutral broker roles, noting India’s attempt to avoid binary alignment and maintain channels with both the US and Iran, arguing India’s BRICS leadership seeks de-escalation, energy security, and stability in food and fertilizer prices. On the broader strategic landscape, Kucinich says there is no real strategy to this war, only an attempt to capture supplies and control the oil market, with petrodollar dominance challenged by BRICS’ move toward local currencies. He predicts higher oil and food prices, inflation, and greater difficulty for the United States to maintain its global position, calling for the removal of bases in the Middle East. He references the “March of Folly” and suggests the new world order will follow, but not the one envisioned by current leaders. The latter portion shifts to viewer questions with Zara Khan, addressing whether BRICS will revive the UN, the nature of the January 2026 Iranian protests, and media portrayals of Iranian casualties. The discussion reaffirms skepticism toward Western media narratives, the CIA’s alleged role in provocations, and questions about international law amid perceptions of a US-led invasion. The program closes by inviting viewer engagement on whether India should maintain neutrality.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs argues that the current moment represents dramatic and dangerous upheaval, with the war against Iran in its second week and a “regime change operation” not going as planned. He says there is tremendous confusion about war aims and the ground situation, describing Washington as “fogged” and characterizing Donald Trump’s public messaging as “ravings” from a “madman.” He contends that escalation control is illusory and that the world is sliding toward a broader and more dangerous conflict. Sachs asserts that the war is not limited to Iran: Iran has claimed to strike U.S. bases in several countries while denying attacks on Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. He suggests the U.S. and Israel are pulling in proxies, including Kurdish fighters, and that Russia may be supplying Iran with intelligence while the U.S. supplies Ukraine. He contends that after decapitation strikes on Iran, Moscow faces pressure to deter NATO attacks, while Europe contemplates increasing nuclear weapons. He views the conflict as part of a wider global struggle, with fighting across the world and potential linkages to energy markets, indicating that an energy crisis is likely to be severe and poorly priced in by markets. He argues that if China and Russia support Iran, it underscores a broader strategic dynamic, given China’s oil interests and the U.S.’s efforts to cut off oil supplies to China from Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. On international law, Sachs reiterates his argument that the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran is also an attack on the United Nations. He asserts that the U.S. under Trump “despises the UN” and seeks to kill it “through a thousand cuts and through a devastating blow,” pointing to the U.S. withdrawal from UN agencies and rejection of key treaties. He emphasizes that Europe is complicit, with European leaders and ambassadors at the UN Security Council focusing critiques on Iran rather than on the U.S.-Israel strike. He invokes Article 2(4) of the UN Charter as the essence of the UN’s purpose to stop the use of force, contrasting this with the belief that the U.S. “rules the world” and uses violence to impose demands, including the call for “unconditional surrender” in Iran. Sachs describes the U.S. foreign policy machinery as dominated by the CIA and a network of “off the books militaries” that pursue regime change and hegemony. He recalls historical episodes: the 1953 coup in Iran, the Kennedy and Eisenhower era, and the long-standing pattern of U.S. interference in other countries’ leadership. He asserts that performance of checks and balances is deteriorating, with democracy weakening under threat and dissent punished, both in the U.S. and in Europe. He likens Trump’s rhetoric to a hyperbolic assertion that he would determine Iran’s next leader, calling this symptomatic of a broader U.S. imperial project. In discussing European responses, Sachs criticizes Germany for showing subservience to the U.S. stance, with European leaders at times prioritizing confrontation with Iran over engagement with Russia or seeking peace. He laments the decline of European strategic autonomy and the EU as a whole, noting the Danish ambassador’s focus on Iran while ignoring U.S.-Israeli actions. He argues that Europe’s leadership has failed to act in the spirit of postwar peace, contrasting current leadership with figures like de Gaulle, Mitterrand, Kohl, or Schroeder. Toward multipolarity, Sachs traces the idea back to Roosevelt’s vision for a United Nations-centered postwar order and contrasts it with the post-1990s U.S. unilateralism. He argues that the United States, Britain, Russia, and China would need to cooperate to avert catastrophe, and that the current trajectory—led by an obsession with global dominance—risks war, economic crisis, and widespread destabilization. He suggests that China and Russia are the most likely to push back against U.S. hegemony, with India possibly playing a role, though its alignment remains ambivalent. Sachs closes by noting that a move toward peaceful multipolar cooperation would require different leadership and a rejection of the Leviathan-style dominance mindset.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, joins the program to discuss the dramatic developments in the war against Iran. The conversation centers on the strike on Karg Island, the strategic choke point for Iran’s oil exports, and the broader implications of escalating U.S. actions. - Karg Island and the oil threat: The host notes that Karg Island handles 90% of Iran’s oil exports and asks why Trump isn’t targeting this area. Johnson argues the attack on Karg Island makes little strategic sense and points out that Iran has five oil terminals; destroying one would not end Iran’s potential revenue. He emphasizes that the U.S. bombed the runway of the major airport on the island, which he says remains irrelevant to Iran’s overall capacity to generate revenue. He notes the runway damage would not support U.S. objectives for invading the island, given runway length constraints (6,000 feet measured vs. need for 3,500–3,700 feet for certain aircraft) and the limited air force in Iran. Johnson asserts that Iran has indicated it would retaliate against oil terminals and Gulf neighbors if oil resources or energy infrastructure are attacked. - Economic and strategic consequences of closing the Strait of Hormuz: Johnson states that the action effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off 20% of the world’s oil supply, 25% of global LNG, and 35% of the world’s urea for fertilizer. He explains fertilizer’s criticality to global agriculture and notes that rising gas and diesel prices in the United States would impact consumer costs, given many Americans live paycheck to paycheck. He suggests the price hikes contribute to inflationary pressure and could trigger a global recession, especially since Persian Gulf countries are pivotal energy suppliers. He also points out that the U.S. cannot easily reopen Hormuz without unacceptable losses and that Iran has prepared for contingencies for thirty years, with robust defenses including tunnels and coastal fortifications. - Military feasibility and strategy: The discussion covers the impracticality of a U.S. ground invasion of Iran, given the size of Iran’s army and the modern battlefield’s drone and missile threats. Johnson notes the U.S. Army and Marine numbers, the logistical challenges of sustaining an amphibious or airborne assault, and the vulnerability of American ships and troops to drones and missiles. He highlights that a mass deployment would be highly costly and dangerous, with historical evidence showing air power alone cannot win wars. The hosts discuss limited U.S. options and the possible futility of attempts to seize or occupy Iran’s territory. - Internal U.S. decision-making and DC dynamics: The program mentions a split inside Washington between anti-war voices and those pressing toward Tehran, with leaks suggesting that top officials warned Trump about major obstacles and potential losses. Johnson cites a leak from the National Intelligence Council indicating regime change in Tehran is unlikely, even with significant U.S. effort. He asserts the Pentagon’s credibility has been questioned after disputed reports (e.g., the KC-135 shootdown) and notes that Trump’s advisors who counsel restraint are being sidelined. - Iranian retaliation and targets: The discussion covers Iran’s targeting of air defenses and critical infrastructure, including radars at embassies and bases in the region, and the destruction of five Saudi air refueling tankers, which Trump later dismissed as fake news. Johnson says Iran aims to degrade Israel economically and militarily, while carefully avoiding mass civilian casualties in some instances. He observes Iran’s restraint in striking desalination plants, which would have caused a humanitarian catastrophe, suggesting a deliberate choice to keep certain targets within bounds. - Global realignments and the role of Russia, China, and India: The conversation touches on broader geopolitical shifts. Johnson argues that Russia and China are offering alternatives to the dollar-dominated order, strengthening ties with Gulf states and BRICS members. He suggests Gulf allies may be considering decoupling from U.S. security guarantees, seeking to diversify away from the petrodollar system. The discussion includes India’s position, noting Modi’s visit to Israel and India’s balancing act amid U.S. pressure and Iran relations; Iran’s ultimatum to allow passage for flag vessels and its diplomacy toward India is highlighted as a measured approach, even as India’s stance has attracted scrutiny. - Israel, casualties, and the broader landscape: The speakers discuss Israeli casualties and infrastructure under sustained Iranian strikes, noting limited information from within Israel due to media constraints and possible censorship. Johnson presents a game-theory view: if Israel threatens a nuclear option, Iran might be compelled to develop a nuclear capability as a deterrent, altering calculations for both Israel and the United States. - Terrorism narrative and historical context: The speakers challenge the U.S. portrayal of Iran as the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, arguing that ISIS and the Taliban have caused far more deaths in recent years, and that Iran’s responses to threats have historically prioritized restraint. They emphasize Iran’s chemical weapons restraint during the Iran-Iraq war, contrasting it with U.S. and Iraqi actions in the 1980s. - Final reflections: The discussion emphasizes the cascade effects of the conflict, including potential impacts on Taiwan’s energy and semiconductor production, multiplied by China’s leverage, and Russia’s increasing global influence. Johnson warns that the war’s end will likely be achieved through shifting alignments and economic realignments rather than a conventional battlefield victory, with the goal of U.S. withdrawal from the region as part of any settlement. The conversation closes with mutual thanks and a reaffirmation of ongoing analysis of these evolving dynamics.