Dialogue Works

In this candid interview, a geopolitical analyst breaks down the realities behind U.S. foreign policy, Trump’s approach to Russia, and the Ukraine conflict. He argues that ultimatums and sanctions are ineffective, as Russia won’t respond to pressure and key U.S. allies like India and China won’t comply with demands to isolate Moscow. The discussion highlights the disconnect in Washington, where leaders lack accurate intelligence and fail to grasp Russia’s strategic position. The analyst dismisses recent diplomatic talks as meaningless without substantive change, emphasizing that the U.S. is stuck in a cycle of denial, driven more by domestic politics and military-industrial interests than genuine diplomacy. He also touches on the broader decline of Western economies, contrasting them with the resilience of Russia and China. Ultimately, the conversation suggests that without a fundamental shift in understanding and policy, no breakthrough in Ukraine or global relations is possible. The interview ends with technical difficulties cutting the connection. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A candid discussion on the potential Trump-Putin summit following a high-level meeting, revealing skepticism about its outcomes. The analysis highlights Putin’s strategic leverage and questions the U.S. policy direction, suggesting the summit may be more about political optics than substantive progress. Inside views on Ukraine’s battlefield realities, disputed casualty claims, and Zelensky’s weakening position are examined, alongside concerns over compromised intelligence and diplomatic isolation of Europe. The conversation extends to Epstein’s alleged role in geopolitical blackmail, Israel’s regional ambitions, and U.S. military presence in Syria and Iraq. A whistleblower’s account exposes pressure within intelligence circles during the Russiagate era, underscoring institutional integrity issues. The interview concludes with reflections on Iran’s defense posture amid rising tensions, Turkey’s complex regional role, and the broader struggle for global influence amid shifting alliances. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A candid, hard-hitting analysis of global power shifts, U.S. foreign policy failures, and the myths driving the Iran nuclear debate. The discussion covers Ukraine’s conscription crisis, the illusion of American leadership, and how propaganda shapes public perception. With insights on BRICS, NATO, and the futility of sanctions, it challenges mainstream narratives on Russia, Israel, and U.S. credibility. The speaker warns that without honest dialogue, the U.S. risks becoming irrelevant in a multipolar world. A must-watch for those seeking truth beyond political spin. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Lebanon is under intense pressure as foreign envoys demand Hezbollah's disarmament, sparking nationwide protests and political tension. A recent ultimatum threatens war if Hezbollah doesn’t surrender weapons in phases within 15 and 60 days. Hezbollah refuses, vowing to resist until Lebanon can defend itself. The Lebanese army, weak and under-equipped, lacks capacity to confront either Israel or internal threats, having previously collapsed against ISIS and HTS invasions. Public opinion overwhelmingly supports resistance, with even traditional opponents acknowledging the need for Hezbollah’s arms against existential threats. Meanwhile, Syria’s new regime controls little beyond major cities, while Israel occupies the south, the U.S. loots oil via Kurdish proxies, and Turkey profits from selling Azerbaijani energy to Syria. In Gaza, genocide continues with Western arms and complicity, fueling global outrage. Veterans and civilians alike are turning against their governments’ support for Israel, signaling a breaking point in the social contract. Western promises to recognize Palestine are dismissed as hollow distractions. The message is clear: disarmament leads to destruction, and resistance remains the only deterrent against aggression. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A stark warning on U.S.-Russia tensions, nuclear brinkmanship, and collapsing diplomacy. The discussion covers dangerous misinformation on Ukraine war casualties, influence of intelligence agencies, and erosion of U.S. foreign policy under current leadership. It highlights how reckless rhetoric, poor intelligence, and subservience to foreign interests undermine global stability. The rise of billionaire-driven agendas, threats to judicial integrity, and loss of diplomatic skills signal a rapidly deteriorating empire. With NATO weakened and Europe leaderless, the world faces heightened risk of nuclear conflict. The future of Israel, BRICS, and global power shifts are examined, revealing a troubling path toward isolation, conflict, and institutional decay. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

U.S. escalations against Russia and Iran signal a broader global confrontation, strengthening Iran’s position as Western pressure spreads. Sanctions and military threats backfire, pushing BRICS nations closer together and boosting Iran’s oil exports and regional influence. The failed Israeli attack on Iran only increased its confidence and capabilities, while exposing Western miscalculations. Europe’s declining relevance, driven by subservience to U.S. policy, contrasts with rising global skepticism toward Western narratives—especially on Palestine, where awareness of the Gaza genocide is shifting public opinion worldwide. Alternative media is challenging Western propaganda, and Iran, now more united and defiant, stands stronger than ever. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Escalating tensions between the U.S. and Russia take center stage as nuclear threats and geopolitical maneuvers intensify. Following inflammatory remarks from Russian officials, a U.S. response involving nuclear submarine deployments raises alarms, interpreted as a performative escalation rather than strategic deterrence. With new hypersonic missile deployments by Russia and looming secondary sanctions, diplomatic efforts appear stalled. The discussion examines failed negotiation attempts, U.S. pressure on India and China over energy ties with Russia, and growing multi-front conflicts encompassing Ukraine, Iran, and the Indo-Pacific. Europe’s role in escalating military tensions is critiqued, highlighting a dangerous disconnect between government policies and public opinion. The analysis reveals a shift from strategic "sequencing" to simultaneous confrontations, increasing global instability. Efforts to weaponize trade, disrupt energy supplies, and leverage regional allies like Pakistan signal a broader, more aggressive U.S. strategy under Trump. Meanwhile, China and India face mounting pressure to choose sides, threatening global economic and security balances. The interview underscores the fragility of diplomacy in an era of capricious leadership, where deals are discarded for shifting priorities, and the risk of miscalculation grows ever higher. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Amid rising U.S.-Russia tensions, nuclear escalation fears grow as submarines and missiles are deployed near Russia. Critics condemn the move as reckless, undermining peace efforts. Despite claims of wanting to end the Ukraine war, U.S. actions signal continued confrontation, driven by deep-state interests and a doctrine of American hegemony. Europe, unprepared and politically compromised, faces existential risk. The absence of a coherent peace strategy, combined with propaganda and inflated casualty figures, reveals a dangerous path toward potential global conflict. Meanwhile, Israel’s influence on U.S. foreign policy is questioned, with allegations of blackmail through operations like Epstein’s network shaping decisions in the Middle East. The discussion warns of a looming catastrophe, fueled by hubris, blunders, and a ruling elite disconnected from reality—echoing the diplomatic failures that led to World War II. With mutual security ignored and leaders unwilling to confront systemic power structures, the world edges closer to a war that could be terminal. Time, the guest warns, is running out. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A candid, critical discussion on global geopolitics, focusing on U.S. foreign policy under Trump, nuclear tensions with Russia, and the weaponization of diplomacy. The interview highlights the dangers of misinformation, media manipulation, and the erosion of rational discourse. It examines the U.S. response to Medvedev’s remarks, the myth of diplomatic engagement with Iran and Russia, and the strategic pushback by BRICS nations, especially Brazil’s stance on dedollarization. The conversation underscores how American actions—driven by military-industrial interests and a "settler mentality"—are accelerating global fragmentation rather than fostering cooperation. With sharp insights into Europe’s complicity in the Gaza conflict, the futility of NATO’s anti-Russia posture, and the looming threat of false-flag operations, the dialogue paints a grim picture of a world where diplomacy is dead. Yet, it finds hope in sovereign nations resisting coercion and building alternative systems. Recorded near the sea, the setting contrasts with the urgency of the message: despite the chaos, we must keep fighting for truth and justice. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A stark look at global tensions in 2025: Trump's erratic behavior, fueled by possible dementia and confabulation, escalates nuclear rhetoric with Russia, while ignoring facts on Ukraine’s casualties. The Gaza genocide continues, enabled by U.S. complicity and Israeli blackmail tactics, with 550 former Israeli security chiefs warning it’s destroying Israel. Hamas is reframed as resistance, not pure terror, amid lies about Oct. 7. Iran forms a new defense council, preparing for war after past U.S. betrayals. Europe enables escalation, sending weapons despite being unprepared for Russian hypersonic retaliation. China, Russia, and India must cut ties with Israel to stop the slaughter. U.S. bullying fails as nations shift trade to China, abandoning the dollar. A new financial world order emerges as America’s influence collapses. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A powerful discussion on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, revealing how aid has been weaponized and medical infrastructure systematically targeted. The analysis exposes the moral and strategic failures of current policies, highlighting civilian suffering and the collapse of humanitarian principles. It also examines the geopolitical instability driven by erratic U.S. leadership, social media-driven diplomacy, and the global shift toward alternative alliances like BRICS. The conversation challenges mainstream narratives on Ukraine, Iran, and trade, emphasizing the need for independent thinking and strategic sovereignty in a rapidly changing world. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A scathing critique of U.S. foreign policy, military overreach, and political decay. The discussion covers the myth of American military superiority, exposed by Israel’s failures against Iran and the hollow narrative around Ukraine. The speaker argues NATO is being systematically demilitarized, U.S. elites are ideologically driven and incompetent, and Western institutions are collapsing. Trump’s push for a ceasefire is dismissed as irrelevant, as Russia continues its mission. The moral bankruptcy of U.S. support for Israel’s actions in Gaza is condemned as complicity in genocide. Europe is deemed finished, ruled by degenerate elites, while Russia, resilient and resource-rich, no longer fears Western threats. The era of U.S. global dominance is over. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A candid discussion on global tensions, focusing on shifting Western attitudes toward Russia, the Ukraine war’s trajectory, and NATO’s future. The guests analyze political dynamics in Europe, leadership changes, and how sanctions and military policies are reshaping alliances. They explore Russia’s strategic patience, the myth of its expansionist threats, and growing European disillusionment with U.S.-led foreign policy. The conversation touches on potential flashpoints in the Caucasus, Iran’s regional role, and Turkey’s balancing act. A key theme is the erosion of trust in Western narratives, with observations on Zelensky’s declining image, Ukraine’s internal challenges, and possible leadership transitions. The interview also examines Trump’s unpredictable rhetoric, its impact on diplomacy, and whether it serves as a negotiation tactic or reflects deeper instability. Ultimately, the discussion highlights a world order in flux, where old alliances are fraying, new power centers are emerging, and the risk of miscalculation grows as Europe faces economic and strategic reckoning. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Amid escalating tensions, reports suggest Iran may have received and tested a Russian S-400 air defense system near Isfahan, signaling a major shift in regional military dynamics. This potential deployment could deter U.S. and Israeli airstrikes by putting their aircraft within range. The recent high-level call between Moscow and Tel Aviv, marked by unusual silence and delayed public response, hints at a strategic warning: Russian-backed defenses may now actively protect Iranian territory. Meanwhile, Ukraine's internal political struggles and Western pressure reveal deeper fractures, as peace efforts stall. With the U.S. rejecting negotiations and demanding capitulation, Russia appears to have abandoned hopes of diplomatic engagement, focusing instead on military advancement and securing its strategic borders. The global order is shifting—diplomacy gives way to deterrence, and the risk of broader conflict grows. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A powerful and emotional discussion on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, highlighting mass starvation, civilian suffering, and the use of food as a weapon of war. The interview condemns Israeli actions under Netanyahu, drawing stark comparisons to historical atrocities and criticizing U.S. complicity. Eyewitness accounts from military veterans and medical personnel reveal horrific conditions and deliberate violence against civilians. The conversation also addresses global political inaction, while spotlighting voices like Brazil’s Lula challenging the narrative. It warns of a shifting world order, U.S. imperial decline, and the dangers of escalating conflict with Iran. With deep moral outrage, the speaker calls for accountability, justice, and a reevaluation of global alliances, stressing that silence and complicity are no longer tenable. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A stark assessment of global tensions, highlighting how U.S. foreign policy—driven by militarism and intelligence operations—has pushed the world toward nuclear brinkmanship. The discussion critiques blind support for Ukraine, exposing how Western actions alienate Russia and drain American military resources. It argues that figures promoting endless conflict serve corporate and political interests, not national security. Europe’s subservience to U.S. policy is condemned, while the reality of limited military stockpiles and failed diplomacy is laid bare. The war in Ukraine is deemed unsustainable, with no path to victory, only escalation. The true goal, according to the analysis, is not peace but regime change and strategic encirclement of Russia. Meanwhile, Armenia’s geopolitical gamble is warned as suicidal, with Russia as its only real ally. The narrative calls for a reset—normalizing relations, ending Russophobia, and rejecting warmongering elites. Without course correction, collapse is inevitable. The message: sovereignty matters, trust is broken, and the current path leads only to ruin. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Iran asserts its victory in the recent 12-day conflict with Israel, exposing Israeli and U.S. military overreach and depletion of defense systems. Iranian officials warn of a stronger response if attacked again, while dismissing Trump’s threats as erratic and disrespectful. Iran continues advancing its nuclear and defense programs, unphased by Western pressure. The interview highlights U.S. complicity in Israel’s actions in Gaza, calls European support for Israel hypocritical, and dismisses the two-state solution as a deceptive facade. Iran strengthens ties with Russia and China, rejects foreign interference in Armenia’s sovereignty, and warns against any threat to the Zangezur corridor. Erdogan and Azerbaijan’s alignment with Israel is criticized as short-sighted, with predictions of regional realignment as U.S. influence wanes. The West’s moral credibility is eroding, while Iran positions itself as a resilient counterforce in a shifting global order. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Ambassador, how do you respond to Colonel Aguilar’s testimony about Amir, the child killed by IDF after showing profound respect to aid workers, and the broader reality of Gaza’s humanitarian sites being designed as death traps?Given the growing number of European countries and Canada considering recognition of Palestine, do you see this as genuine support for Palestinian self-determination or merely a symbolic slap at Israel?With Steve Witkoff engaging in talks with Netanyahu and touring Gaza’s aid sites, do you believe these are sincere diplomatic efforts or orchestrated propaganda that undermine real peace?How do you assess the potential for renewed conflict between Iran and Israel, especially in light of Iran’s likely response if attacked again, and does Witkoff have any credibility in de-escalating tensions?Considering the erratic and coercive nature of U.S. foreign policy under Trump—tariffs, secondary sanctions, and bullying tactics—when do you think a counter-revolution against such self-destructive policies might emerge?Ambassador Chas Freeman:Colonel Aguilar exposed a horrifying truth: the so-called humanitarian aid sites in Gaza are death traps, deliberately designed like cattle chutes leading to slaughter. Amir’s story—his dignity, desperation, and murder—is emblematic of a system where the U.S. and Israel jointly orchestrate a genocide under the guise of aid. The IDF shoots civilians leaving the sites, and American contractors mimic this behavior, showing a complete lack of discipline and humanity. This is un-American and immoral.Recognition of Palestine by Western nations is too little, too late. It’s politically dishonest—meant more as a rebuke to Israel than a real step toward Palestinian self-determination. The land has been largely seized, Gaza is being ethnically cleansed, and no symbolic gesture can undo that. It reflects Western hypocrisy: lofty rhetoric with no meaningful action, continuing a tradition of empty words in West Asia.Steve Witkoff’s efforts are a charade. His tour of Gaza with an evangelical ambassador was political theater, contradicting the reality exposed by Colonel Aguilar. Witkoff has no credibility—he misled Iran, enabling an Israeli attack, and acts as Netanyahu’s mouthpiece. Demanding Hamas’s surrender is not negotiation; it’s a demand for national suicide. Real diplomacy requires talking to your opponents, not demonizing them.Iran is unlikely to show restraint in a future conflict. After suffering civilian casualties, they will target Israeli population centers, not just military sites. The current U.S. approach, pushing maximalist demands disguised as American policy but rooted in Israeli interests, ensures escalation. Iran doesn’t seek Israel’s destruction; they’ve shown willingness to coexist, as history with Cyrus and Esther shows. But Israel refuses to recognize its neighbors’ rights, making peace impossible.Trump’s foreign policy is an extortion racket—arbitrary tariffs, secondary sanctions, and economic bullying that harm the U.S. more than others. It alienates allies, destroys trust, and undermines American industry. Policies like taxing steel but not orange juice reveal a shallow understanding of economics. This self-destructive approach may eventually trigger a counter-revolution, but for now, it reflects a deeper crisis of American leadership and morality. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the reality behind the humanitarian aid being delivered in Gaza, and who is actually controlling it?How can the U.S. justify its support for Israel given the allegations of war crimes and the destruction of aid infrastructure in Gaza?Why are European leaders delaying recognition of a Palestinian state until September, and what real impact will it have?What are the implications of Russia’s military actions and strategic gains, particularly in relation to NATO and U.S. military credibility?How is the shifting global order—especially the rise of BRICS and declining Western leverage—affecting U.S. foreign policy and economic threats like sanctions?Col. Larry Wilkerson:Humanitarian aid in Gaza is largely controlled by the IDF; only four distribution centers remain, all in active combat zones, effectively weaponizing aid access.The U.S. is complicit in war crimes by enabling Israel’s actions; military and political support continues despite clear violations of the Geneva Conventions.Delaying Palestinian statehood recognition is a political excuse; real pressure on Netanyahu won’t come from symbolic UN gestures but from cutting military aid.The U.S. military is overstretched and declining in capability, while Russia has shown pragmatic strength, exposing American strategic weakness and naval fecklessness.Sanctions on Russia are ineffective because Russia doesn’t need the West; meanwhile, the U.S. relies on Russian fertilizer, showing economic interdependence and policy hypocrisy.Larry Johnson:Aid operations in Gaza are facade—IDF controls all access points, and contractors like Safe Reach Solutions take direct orders from the Israeli military.The U.S. intelligence on Ukraine comes from Ukrainian sources, not human intelligence in Russia, making it unreliable and potentially biased.Netanyahu uses war to survive politically; he will provoke conflict with Iran to distract from domestic crises and maintain power.Trump’s foreign policy is incoherent—he talks tough on Russia but ignores that trade is minimal, and his focus on deals ignores structural global shifts.Countries like India and China are circumventing U.S. sanctions through black markets, proving that Western economic pressure is no longer effective. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Several countries, including Spain, the UK, France, and Canada, are moving to recognize Palestine. How do you see this shift affecting Israel globally, especially given U.S. military limitations revealed during the Iran-Israel conflict?Given Israel’s reliance on U.S. support and the reported use of 25% of THAAD missiles in just 12 days of conflict, do you believe the U.S. recognizes its own limitations in sustaining Israel militarily?If Netanyahu were replaced, could Israeli society shift its mindset, especially after the realities exposed in Gaza, Syria, and the Iran conflict?Do key U.S. supporters of Israel understand the changing geopolitical reality, or are they clinging to outdated allegiances?With Trump attacking BRICS nations through tariffs—50% on Brazil, 25% on India—could this be part of a broader strategy to pressure Russia and undermine BRICS?Dimitri Orlov:European recognition of Palestine is symbolic and irrelevant. Israel and the U.S. have ignored global consensus for decades. The real issue is Israel’s inability to defend itself, as shown during the Iran strikes, and its dependence on NATO and U.S. missile defense, which is unsustainable.The U.S. is in terminal decline as an energy and military power. Shale oil production is collapsing, and it cannot replace Russian or Iranian energy. Trump’s claims about “turning up the spigot” show he doesn’t understand energy markets or production limits.Replacing Netanyahu won’t change Israel. The country’s survival depends on U.S. money and weapons. Internal politics are driven by zealots, but the real lever is American funding. Once that stops, Israel changes overnight.Trump’s support base includes aging pro-Israel oligarchs who won’t change their stance. Public opinion turning against Israel means nothing because the U.S. isn’t a democracy—money and lobbying decide policy, not polls.Trump’s tariffs don’t harm BRICS; they tax American consumers. Countries like India and China easily bypass sanctions—buying Russian oil via third countries. The U.S. can’t control global trade anymore, and its military is too weak to confront peer powers like Russia or China. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Given the current geopolitical stalemate in Ukraine and the Middle East, do you believe the United States can realistically afford to pursue peace under a Trump administration?Despite Trump’s past intentions to withdraw from global conflicts, why does he continue policies like arming Ukraine and imposing sanctions, which seem to align with the deep state?Why is Trump engaging in public confrontations with figures like Medvedev, and isn’t this counterproductive to diplomacy, especially when Medvedev represents Russian policy?How can Europe afford massive defense and energy deals with the U.S., and isn’t it clear that both sides lack the capacity to fulfill these agreements?Considering repeated failures—like the Ukraine war and the Iran-Israel tensions—why does the U.S. leadership seem unable to adapt, and where is the learning curve?Alex Krainer:Trump’s actions are likely strategic deception rather than genuine alignment with the old imperial order. His rhetoric may mask a long-term goal of placing the U.S. in a dominant position within a multipolar world, not returning to Biden-era policies.Trump’s first-term intentions to withdraw from Afghanistan, Syria, and Europe were sabotaged by the deep state, and Russiagate was a British-led operation designed to undermine him and preserve U.S. imperial engagement.The public feud with Medvedev is performative—noise meant for domestic and deep state consumption. It distracts from behind-the-scenes efforts to position the U.S. favorably with rising powers like Russia and China.The EU deal is less about economics and more about exposing the EU’s weakness. By forcing von der Leyen into an unfulfillable agreement, Trump has undermined the bloc’s legitimacy, potentially accelerating its fragmentation.Trump’s tariffs on BRICS nations are not truly about punishment, but about protecting U.S. industry and reindustrializing America under the guise of geopolitical conflict, using global tensions as a pretext for domestic economic transformation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Do you think European efforts to satisfy Donald Trump are primarily aimed at prolonging U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war?Trump has reset his deadline for Russia—what kind of progress is he actually seeking, and what might happen after this new deadline?Why does Europe seem to be increasing its dependence on the United States despite Trump’s clear pivot to Asia and lack of strategic inclusion of Europe?Given the UK’s role in Ukraine and its intelligence activities—such as the attack on Russian bombers—is Britain now acting independently or still as a U.S. proxy?What does Trump actually want from Hamas, and why has he been unable to achieve any breakthrough in negotiations?Paul Craig Roberts:Trump views foreign policy like a businessman: he’s shifting the financial burden of European defense and Ukraine’s war onto NATO/EU while eliminating trade imbalances. Europeans comply because they fear being abandoned and want to stay tied to U.S. security, despite growing authoritarian tendencies in their own free speech policies.Trump isn’t seriously pursuing peace. The war in Ukraine is an American proxy conflict, and Zelensky can’t end it. Putin has repeatedly stated the root cause is U.S. military encirclement and demands a mutual security agreement—but Trump ignores this, making his deadlines meaningless posturing.Europe long ago surrendered real sovereignty, associating national independence with the trauma of WWII. The EU functions as an unelected, authoritarian structure, and countries like Germany and France are economically and politically dependent on the U.S., making true strategic autonomy impossible.The UK is not acting independently—it’s operating as a proxy for Washington. The drone attack on Russian strategic bombers was likely orchestrated by British intelligence but only with U.S. approval. This allows Trump to maintain plausible deniability while keeping pressure on Russia.Hamas has nothing left to negotiate. Israel has declared all of Palestine as its own, leaving no room for a Palestinian state. Any surrender would mean execution. Trump and U.S. allies like Lindsey Graham are calling to “finish the job,” meaning the complete destruction of Gaza—starvation, bombing, and extermination—under the guise of military necessity. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your take on the changing or escalating dynamics between Russia and the United States, especially after Trump’s new deadline for Russia?Why does Donald Trump seem to benefit more from continuing the Ukraine conflict rather than ending it?How do you explain Europe’s ability to convince neutral countries like Switzerland and Austria to abandon neutrality, despite their leaders appearing disconnected from public opinion?Do you think Russia still hopes for a major geopolitical agreement with the U.S. and China, like a “Yalta 2.0,” especially under Trump?What do you anticipate will happen next in Gaza, especially after Lindsey Graham urged Netanyahu to “finish the job”?Pepe Escobar:Trump’s deadlines are meaningless theatrics. He doesn’t understand the Ukraine war’s roots as a U.S.-led proxy conflict, and even if explained, he’d never admit its failure. His statements are toxic noise dominating global discourse.Trump is powerless to end the war. He can’t deploy troops or supply sufficient weapons. His threats are empty, and Putin likely sees him as a dangerous buffoon, not a serious negotiator.European leaders like von der Leyen represent old money elites who control Brussels and national policies. Their power is protected by interlocking financial and political networks, making them untouchable despite public discontent.Russia initially hoped for a “Yalta 2.0” with Trump and Xi, but Trump’s erratic behavior has destroyed any trust. He’s incapable of serious geopolitical negotiation and only pursues self-aggrandizing “deals.”The West’s narrative of “Russian aggression” is a manufactured lie. In reality, the U.S. has provoked Russia for decades, and Europe is now suffering the consequences of its own subservience and delusion.Larry Johnson:Trump is impotent in foreign policy. He can’t end the war or change reality. His deadlines are performative nonsense, and no one—especially Putin—takes him seriously anymore.Europe’s leaders are weak, delusional, and militarily incapable. Countries like the UK have tiny armies and lack the industrial base or logistics to sustain real combat, yet they provoke Russia recklessly.Leaders like Macron were engineered by financial elites (e.g., Rothschild Bank). The French political system is a closed, incestuous circle protected by media and wealth, disconnected from the people.The U.S. acts like a global arsonist, creating chaos in places like Southeast Asia to destabilize rivals. The Thai-Cambodian conflict, for example, likely has American fingerprints behind it.Israel is heading for self-destruction. It’s overextended, losing soldiers to trauma and suicide, and internally divided. Like the Soviet Union, it may collapse under its own moral and strategic bankruptcy, not from external invasion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the current status of the Gaza situation after Steve Witkoff’s failed negotiations with Hamas?Why do Western powers continue to use the term "terrorist" as a barrier to negotiation, and how does this hinder conflict resolution?How do you explain the lack of legitimacy of the Israeli state, especially in light of its security policies and actions against civilians?Given Israel’s actions in Gaza—such as targeting civilians with heavy bombardments and at food distribution points—how is it that Israel is not universally labeled a terrorist state?Why do Western nations refuse to recognize Palestine, despite its UN recognition, and how does this prevent progress toward a two-state solution?Col. Jacques Baud:The word "terrorist" is often misused as a political tool rather than an accurate descriptor; it prevents dialogue by dehumanizing resistance movements, even though many, like historical liberation fighters, are fighting occupation. Labeling groups as terrorists without context ignores the root causes of resistance.Israel is not a true democracy nor a state ruled by law—its policies are based on confrontation, not cooperation, and apply laws selectively. The use of mass destruction weapons, targeting of civilians, and systematic violence align more with state terrorism than legitimate military action.Resistance arises from occupation; no occupation means no resistance. Hamas has repeatedly shown willingness to negotiate and compromise, but the West refuses to engage, instead demanding unilateral disarmament, which is neither realistic nor fair under international law.The West, especially Europe, lacks strategic vision and is trapped in ideological narratives. It avoids conflict resolution with Palestine, Iran, and Russia not due to lack of solutions, but due to fear of antagonizing Israel and the US, despite viable paths like diplomacy and neutrality.Current Western leadership is intellectually weak and driven by emotion rather than rational analysis. Decision-making is based on feelings, not intelligence or facts, leading to failed policies. This decline in strategic competence worsens global crises and undermines the role of neutral actors like Switzerland. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Why did the latest talks between Steve Witkoff and Hamas fail, and why does the U.S. seem unwilling to accept Hamas’s requests for humanitarian aid in Gaza?Given Donald Trump’s statement that Hamas “wants to die,” do you see this as a genuine assessment or a justification for imposing surrender terms?Emmanuel Macron has announced intentions to recognize Palestine—do you believe this is a sincere move, and why delay it to September?Keir Starmer named Iran as a threat to the UK—do you understand why Iran would be considered a direct threat to Britain?With reports of an Israeli plan targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, was the real objective regime change, and what might a new attack aim to achieve?Trita Parsi:The U.S. and Israel aren’t negotiating peace but imposing surrender terms. Hamas asked for food and medicine, which Israel rejected as part of a strategy to starve Gaza—Witkoff, aligned with Israel, walked out.Trump’s narrative mirrors Biden’s: blaming Hamas while ignoring that Israel often rejects deals. This reflects donor influence—like Miriam Adelson—and ideological Zionism within the administration.Macron’s recognition is symbolic. The real effort was a June conference delayed after Israel bombed Iran. France may be acting now due to rising Gaza starvation and domestic pressure to escape complicity.Iran is not a military threat to the UK. European views shifted due to Iran’s support for Russia in Ukraine, but direct threat claims are exaggerated—unless mismanagement pushes Iran toward nuclear weapons.The goal isn’t regime change but regime collapse—decapitation without responsibility. Israel wants to fragment Iran, create internal chaos, and achieve air dominance, similar to its strategies in Lebanon and Syria.Ambassador Chas Freeman:The U.S. negotiates with Israel about Palestinians, not with Palestinians themselves. The current approach is about imposing Israeli terms, not peace.Israel’s actions—starving Gaza, denying medical care—are part of a deliberate strategy. Their denials are fabrications, increasingly disbelieved globally.Recognition of Palestine is symbolic. Without Israeli consent, it changes nothing. By September, there may be few Palestinians left in Gaza to recognize.The idea that Iran threatens the UK is laughable. Britain overestimates its relevance. The real danger is that U.S.-Israeli actions are pushing Iran toward nuclear weapons for self-deterrence.Israel seeks not regime change but regime removal—chaos and fragmentation. They failed to decapitate Iran’s leadership, but will likely try again. Iran is resilient and will respond hard, risking a far worse conflict. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of Donald Trump’s statements about NATO expansion and U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding Russia and Ukraine?Do you believe the U.S. military-industrial complex benefits in the long term from ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine?How do you view the Trump administration’s approach to disarming Hezbollah in Lebanon, and is this strategy addressing the root causes of regional instability?Given the recent fatwa issued by an Iranian cleric calling for the assassination of Trump and you, how do you assess the current escalation and credibility of such threats?What is your reaction to Israel’s foreign minister condemning Russian attacks on civilians in Ukraine, while Israel conducts a similar campaign in Gaza?Larry C. Johnson:NATO expansion is the root cause of the current conflict with Russia. Since the Clinton era, the U.S. has provoked Russia by pushing NATO to its borders, ignoring Russian security concerns, leading to the current de facto war.The military-industrial complex benefits financially—defense contractors receive more government funding and deliver high-priced, often ineffective weapons—but the strategic outcome is flawed, as seen in Ukraine with expensive systems like Patriot missiles being used inefficiently.Hezbollah is not the cause but a symptom of the failure to achieve Palestinian self-determination. The West misrepresents the group as religious fanatics, ignoring their fight for freedom and political rights.Yes, a fatwa was issued days ago by Iran’s top cleric calling for the assassination of Trump and me. Hezbollah also targeted our home with a drone attack—this is serious, not fiction.Israel’s condemnation of Russia’s actions in Ukraine is pure hypocrisy. They are committing the same atrocities in Gaza—starving children, killing civilians—mirroring Nazi crimes, yet wrap it in religious justification.Col. Larry Wilkerson:The idea that NATO will increase defense spending to 5% is unrealistic—it would require massive cuts to social programs, which European populations won’t accept. It’s a political fantasy.The U.S. arms industry produces over-engineered, expensive weapons that don’t perform well in real combat. Compare this to simpler, effective systems like the T-34 tank or Iranian drones.The war in Gaza is causing a humanitarian catastrophe—children are starving, images resemble Nazi concentration camps. This is a deliberate policy, and the world is finally waking up.Netanyahu’s claim of a “12-day war” with Iran was delusional. Iran responded with a highly effective missile and drone attack, exposing Israel’s vulnerability and damaging its military prestige.Many Israelis support Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza despite opposing his domestic policies. This reflects deep-seated hostility toward Palestinians, encouraged by leaders like Bibi and enabled by allies like the U.S. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What were the outcomes of the latest round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?How should we interpret the recent protests in Ukraine, and what implications do they have for Russia?Does the West, particularly the US and Europe, care about who governs Ukraine after a settlement, and how do their differing approaches affect the situation?What is the significance of the Zangazur corridor, and could the US play a role in managing it, impacting Russia and Iran?How can we understand Turkey’s complex and often contradictory behavior in the region, especially regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Middle East?Dmitry Orlov:The talks occurred but achieved little—both sides remain too far apart for substantive negotiations. Russia proposed short humanitarian ceasefires to recover the dead and wounded, which Ukraine said they would consider. The Ukrainian delegation no longer follows Zelensky’s demands, signaling a shift toward more realistic, albeit limited, engagement.The protests in Ukraine are not organic but orchestrated "AstroTurf" events, funded and organized by political rivals like Poroshenko and Klitschko to challenge Zelensky. Participants are mostly young, paid individuals; older men avoid protests due to fear of conscription. This reflects Ukraine’s political instability and lack of genuine democratic process.Europe and the US have divergent interests: Europe takes an ideological stance, while Trump focuses on economic leverage. Trump pressured Europe to fund Ukraine’s war effort after the US withdrew support, exposing Europe’s inability or unwillingness to pay. This shift allows the US to blame Europe if Ukraine collapses, marking a strategic win for Trump and a diplomatic loss for Europe.The idea that the US will manage the Zangazur corridor is baseless "fake news." The corridor is strategically important for Iran as a cultural and recreational outlet, and for Azerbaijan as a land link to Turkey. However, merging Azerbaijan with Turkey risks destabilizing both due to deep ethnic and regional divisions within Azerbaijan, making such integration problematic.Turkey’s behavior stems from its fractured identity—balancing secular Ataturk-era nationalism with Islamist influences like the Muslim Brotherhood. Historically prone to internal betrayal, Turkey is now less controllable by the US, especially since Putin helped Erdogan survive a coup attempt. Russia manages Turkey as an untrustworthy neighbor, expecting betrayal but avoiding overreaction. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:You believe NATO is escalating by planning to send 250,000 troops to Ukraine—what is the main reason you feel this way?Do you think the Trump administration or Donald Trump himself was influenced by European or U.S. establishment forces to continue the conflict?Given Germany’s economic decline, why is its government focusing on increasing military spending instead of fixing its domestic economy?Is the same dynamic happening within NATO, and what is the real necessity behind military pacts like the UK-Germany alliance?With Trump’s 50-day ultimatum toward Russia, do you see any realistic path to peace, or is this just escalating tensions further?Martin A. Armstrong:Ukraine is losing, and the West started this conflict—from Maidan to installing an unelected government, provoking civil war. The Minsk Agreement was a sham; Merkel admitted they never intended to honor it, only to build Ukraine’s army. Now, NATO seeks escalation because Europe is collapsing economically and needs an external enemy to distract from internal failures.Yes, it appears Trump has been influenced. I’m disappointed—he was supposed to end endless wars, but Europe has sabotaged every peace effort. The EU is falling apart due to its flawed structure, disastrous policies (COVID, climate, sanctions), and now uses war to maintain control and divert public anger from collapsing economies and pension systems.Germany is acting like any failing government—blaming an external enemy. Sanctions on Russia backfired, destroying German industry and causing record bankruptcies. Instead of fixing the economy, they’re pushing military spending and ideology, ignoring reality. This is centralization gone wrong—like Stalin, they prioritize control over people’s lives.NATO should have been disbanded after the Cold War. It survives by manufacturing threats—keeping Putin as the enemy to justify its existence and funding. The UK-Germany pact and others aren’t about defense; they’re about provoking war. They don’t want diplomacy—no one has even called Putin to negotiate. Their goal is conquest, fueled by delusions of reviving European dominance.The 50-day deadline is meaningless bravado. Trump likely thinks he can scare Putin, but after Minsk, why would Putin trust any deal? NATO and Europe have no credibility. This isn’t about Ukraine—it’s about NATO vs. Russia. The real goal is to provoke a response, trigger Article 5, and drag the U.S. into war. There is no peaceful solution in sight—only escalation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your take on Donald Trump’s claim that BRICS is fading and his threat to impose 10% tariffs on member nations?How do current U.S. policies, especially under Trump, affect the global standing and value of the dollar?Can you explain the significance of the Financial Times article showing declining foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries, especially by China?What explains the sharp rise in U.S. Treasury holdings reported by the Cayman Islands?How are global political shifts, such as rising nationalism in Japan and Europe, influenced by U.S. economic and trade policies?Michael Hudson:Trump’s policies—tariffs, inflation, monopoly tolerance—are driving foreign investors out of dollar assets, accelerating the dollar’s decline despite higher interest rates.The dollar is falling because investors see U.S. policy as destabilizing; they’re moving into gold, Bitcoin, and other safe assets, not because of economic strength but fear of loss.The Cayman Islands’ rising Treasury holdings reflect offshore financial flows, often from illicit sources like tax evasion, dictators, or crypto scams funneled through U.S. bank branches.U.S. weapon systems are being exposed as ineffective in Ukraine and the Middle East, undermining the arms export economy that was meant to sustain global dollar demand.The post-WWII Bretton Woods system is unraveling; just as the U.S. replaced the British pound, emerging powers are now building alternatives to dollar dominance, which U.S. threats can’t stop.Richard Wolff:Trump’s belief that devaluing the dollar boosts exports ignores that the U.S. has deindustrialized—there’s little left to export, making the policy self-defeating.Harsh U.S. immigration and ICE policies are deterring tourism and foreign real estate investment, reducing demand for dollars and contributing to its decline.Countries like Japan and Canada are using non-tariff barriers—cultural and political resistance—to reject U.S. goods, despite trade deals, showing limits of American leverage.The U.S. is alienating allies with tariffs and erratic policies, pushing them toward BRICS and new economic alignments as a defense against American economic instability.The decline of American empire is clear in military weakness (e.g., inability to sustain long wars) and loss of ideological influence, mirrored in the rise of left and right nationalist movements abroad. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:While the U.S. was negotiating with Iran, Israel launched an attack. Donald Trump claimed he knew about it in advance. What was the outcome of that attack, and how has it affected Iran’s trust in negotiations?Given the attack during negotiations, what message does this send to other countries considering diplomatic engagement with the U.S. or Israel?The attack was said to target Iran’s nuclear program. What was its actual strategic outcome—did it hinder Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons?How should we interpret Iran’s current nuclear capabilities in light of the attack and its aftermath?You mentioned that Iran may now be considered an undeclared nuclear weapons state. Can you explain the evidence behind this assessment?Prof. Ted Postol:The attack severely damaged Iran’s enrichment facilities, but it failed in its core objective: preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons. In fact, Iran now has the capability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for approximately 10 atomic bombs.Any country in a tense relationship with Western powers must now question the credibility of diplomatic negotiations, given repeated instances—like Minsk II and the Iran talks—where agreements were undermined or abandoned unilaterally.Iran has produced around 400+ kilograms of 60% enriched uranium and over 13,000 centrifuges. Even if only a small fraction are hidden, they could quickly enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, making Iran a de facto undeclared nuclear weapons state—similar to Israel.The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found uranium enriched to 83.7%, which is functionally equivalent to 90% weapons-grade material. This indicates Iran has likely tested its final enrichment steps, confirming its technical readiness to build bombs.Iran doesn’t need a large or visible facility to produce a bomb. A small cascade of centrifuges (e.g., 174 units) in a 60-square-meter space, powered by something as small as a Prius generator, could complete final enrichment in weeks—making detection nearly impossible and deterrence a reality. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the Istanbul talks between Ukraine and Russia, and what do each side want?Are the protests in Ukraine primarily about opposition to Zelenskyy, or are they signaling a desire for new leadership?Do you see signs that Germany is beginning to understand the realities of the war in Ukraine, especially in public opinion and media?Is there evidence that British intelligence is preparing Zaluzhny to replace Zelenskyy as president of Ukraine?What is your view on the situation in Gaza, particularly regarding Israel’s humanitarian claims in Ukraine while conducting a military campaign in Gaza?Ray McGovern:The Ukrainian delegation likely attended the Istanbul talks under U.S. pressure, as Zelenskyy is in deep trouble politically and financially. Trump reportedly warned him it was his “last chance” to negotiate before U.S. support ends, suggesting a shift toward Europe.The protests in Ukraine may reflect a desire for new leadership, possibly someone from the hard-right Azov faction, which ironically aligns with Russia’s stated goal of “denazification.” This puts Ukraine in a difficult position.German public opinion is heavily brainwashed on Ukraine. Even suggesting understanding Putin’s perspective is taboo—Angela Merkel was attacked for advocating it. The destruction of Nord Stream has hurt Germany’s economy, but awareness of U.S. role in this is still limited.Zaluzhny is reportedly close to the Azov movement, which makes him problematic. While the British may be backing him, the succession plan is unclear. Zelenskyy may be kept temporarily to accept an unpopular peace deal to shield a new leader from blame.The hypocrisy of Israel condemning Russian actions in Ukraine while committing atrocities in Gaza is staggering. The U.S. remains the key enabler, and moral authority is absent. Younger generations, including Jewish Americans, are increasingly rejecting this double standard.Graham E. Fuller:The Istanbul talks reflect a moment of truth. Western narratives of Ukrainian victory are collapsing. The U.S. and Europe must now manage a retreat from their own propaganda, and Zelenskyy may lose his position as a result.The real issue behind the protests is the collapse of Western promises. Zelenskyy may be used as a “fall guy” to accept a humiliating peace, sparing a successor from the political cost of surrender.Germany’s current government is weak, but rising populist, anti-war, and anti-NATO movements may force a political shift. Economic hardship could eventually push Germany to reassess its foreign policy dependence on the U.S.The British have historically influenced U.S. foreign policy and are likely playing a key role in shaping Ukraine’s leadership transition. Boris Johnson previously sabotaged peace talks, indicating deep British involvement in prolonging the conflict.Israel’s actions in Gaza are indefensible, especially given its public stance on Ukraine. While some European institutions and media are beginning to speak more honestly, real change will require U.S. congressional action—which is blocked by massive pro-Israel lobbying. The situation is morally bankrupt but politically entrenched. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is happening in Ukraine with the recent protests against corruption, and why are we seeing public dissent now after years of silence during the war?How do you explain the mainstream media coverage of protests in Ukraine by outlets like Bloomberg, Financial Times, and Al Jazeera? Are they trying to build a narrative to remove Zelensky from power?What is the significance of the peace negotiations in Istanbul, and what are Russia’s true objectives in these talks?Why does Europe seem more engaged and connected with Ukraine compared to the United States, which appears less involved under Trump?Donald Trump claims the U.S. is producing more missiles and ammunition than any country in history—how accurate is this, and what does it say about U.S. military capabilities compared to Russia?Andrei Martyanov:The protests in Ukraine are not genuine mass movements but orchestrated, paid events funded by Western organizations like Soros and anti-corruption NGOs. They are theatrical, reminiscent of the Maidan, and designed to create a false narrative. There is no real popular uprising because the population only acts when paid. The Zelensky regime is corrupt, and Ukrainian leadership has historically focused only on stealing resources, not governing.The media narrative is shifting because Washington and London are looking to replace Zelensky with another figure, like Zaluzhny, thinking a personality change will serve their goals. But this is superficial. The strategic aim remains the same: to use Ukraine as a future bridgehead against Russia. These Western actors don’t understand real policy or strategy—they only shuffle individuals, not change objectives. Russians see this clearly and are not fooled.The Istanbul negotiations are mostly for show and PR. Russia’s demands haven’t changed since 2021: NATO must roll back to 1997 borders, Ukraine must be demilitarized and neutral, and territorial realities on the ground must be recognized. Talks focus on humanitarian issues like POW exchanges. Real negotiations require dealing with serious actors, not puppets like Zelensky. A Putin-Trump summit may happen, but only after significant groundwork—and even then, Trump is not trusted.Europe is deeply brainwashed and driven by a Russia-hating frenzy. Its elites, losing power, are inciting war sentiment. Countries like Germany, despite weak militaries, are pushing for confrontation. This is dangerous and delusional. Russian officials, like Maria Zakharova, have warned Germany it could be wiped out. Much of Europe, especially the West, is culturally conformist and easily manipulated, while only a small minority (10–15%) truly understand the danger.Trump’s claims about missile production are childish and false—typical narcissistic boasting from someone disconnected from reality. The U.S. military-industrial complex is weak, especially in artillery and missile production. Russia produces high-precision weapons at an order of magnitude greater than all of NATO combined. U.S. systems like ATACMS are outdated and easily shot down. Russia’s air defense (S-400, S-500) and hypersonic missiles (Kinzhal, Zircon, Kh-BD) far surpass anything the U.S. has. Trump lives in an alternate universe, and his statements are a national embarrassment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the main goal of the Russians in the upcoming third round of negotiations in Istanbul?Do you think Ukraine will have a presidential election soon, and could that facilitate negotiations?Is General Zaluzhny a viable candidate to replace Zelensky, and would he be more open to negotiation?How do the Russians view the issue of "denazification" in Ukraine, and can it be achieved without removing the current leadership?How do the Russians perceive Donald Trump, and do they believe he has a coherent strategy, or are they confused by his actions?John Helmer:The Russian goal in Istanbul may be a surprise maneuver—offering a ceasefire tied to a delay in Western arms deliveries and pushing for regime change in Kyiv, possibly aligning with a potential Trump-Putin meeting in Beijing around September 3rd.Ukrainian elections are unlikely soon; Zelensky is actively consolidating power and suppressing anti-corruption protests, which are likely Western-manipulated. Regime change is a key Russian priority, but internal Ukrainian politics remain opaque.While Zaluzhny is favored by the British as a potential replacement, he is unlikely to win an election as a peacemaker. Russia’s military leadership believes true regime change requires the complete destruction of Ukraine’s military capacity, not just a leadership swap.Russians see "denazification" as impossible without changing the underlying interests driving hostility. Military victory is seen as necessary to dismantle the ideological base, potentially leaving Western Ukraine (e.g., Lvov) isolated in a demilitarized zone, while eastern and southern cities are integrated into Russia.Russian views on Trump are mixed: while he’s seen as preferable to Biden, his erratic behavior is noted. However, Moscow is no longer seeking American approval—the war has revealed deep hostility from the U.S. and NATO, ending any illusion of coexistence. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:How do you assess Iran’s behavior following the foreign minister’s interview on Fox News, especially regarding its nuclear program and desire for negotiations with the U.S.?Do you believe the main objective behind Israeli and U.S. actions toward Iran is regime change?Given Israel’s struggles in defending against Houthi attacks, how credible is their threat or plan to launch a major offensive against Iran?Why is the UK, despite strong verbal condemnation, not taking significant action to pressure Israel over Gaza?What role is Israel playing in exploiting divisions within the Druze community in Syria, and what are their broader strategic goals in the region?Colonel Larry Wilkerson:The Fox News question about Iran’s underground nuclear facilities was absurd—of course they’re underground, given Israel’s history of assassinating scientists and attacking infrastructure. It’s basic self-defense, not proof of malign intent. Iran is trying to negotiate, but I suspect they’re being naive, trusting Trump will deal in good faith, which he won’t.Yes, regime change is the official U.S. policy toward Iran, as codified by Congress. But the idea that the Iranian people would rise up and install a pro-Western government is delusional. Any new government in Tehran would still face the same threats—especially from Israel—and would likely pursue the same strategic deterrents, including nuclear weapons.Israel cannot realistically defeat Iran, but Netanyahu, like a dictator drunk on his own rhetoric, believes he can—especially with U.S. backing. He’s suicidal in his ambitions. Iran is not the weak state of 1953; it has learned from past conflicts and built a resilient, asymmetric defense. Any war would be catastrophic and unwinnable for Israel and the U.S.The UK talks tough but does nothing meaningful because it’s still aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests. Real pressure—like cutting arms sales or imposing sanctions—is absent. Meanwhile, what’s happening in Gaza—using aid distribution sites as killing zones—is a genocide live-streamed, worse than Dachau in visibility and cruelty. The world sees it but hesitates to act.Israel is bribing and manipulating Druze leaders in Syria to gain local support, not out of goodwill, but to clear its rear flank as it advances. Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is regional domination—Greater Israel—encompassing Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and beyond. But he’s overreaching; he’ll drag the U.S. into a war with Iran that neither can win, potentially triggering a wider conflict, even nuclear escalation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:The U.S. is considering sanctions on Brazil, China, and India to pressure Russia over Ukraine. Senator Lindsey Graham is pushing for 500% tariffs. What’s your take on this strategy?Germany seems tied to Ukraine policy as a way to manage its own internal crises—collapsing economy, energy issues, political division. Is this a sustainable or rational strategy?There are reports Poland is asking its citizens to leave Russia—could this signal a coming internal collapse in Ukraine or broader regional instability?J.D. Vance appears skeptical of NATO and European engagement. Could a future U.S. administration under Trump or Vance lead to NATO’s effective end?Iran’s foreign minister recently appeared on Fox News offering dialogue. Is this a genuine opening, or are they mimicking Putin’s tactic of talking while fighting continues?Scott Ritter:Lindsey Graham’s threats are empty posturing. He doesn’t understand Russia, and the idea that the U.S. can dictate terms through sanctions on neutral countries shows delusion. Russia isn’t bound by timelines or Western pressure—it’s focused on winning.Germany’s economy is de-industrializing, politically fragile, and dependent on U.S. narratives. Merz’s strong support for Ukraine is less about principle and more about political survival. His government is weak and could collapse under pressure.Poland’s actions suggest they know something—possibly a coming shift in Ukraine, like Zelensky being forced out. But Poland can’t intervene militarily; they’d run out of ammunition in 14 days. It’s a sign of fear, not capability.Without U.S. leadership, NATO fractures. The British, French, and Germans want to lead, but Eastern states want war with Russia while Western Europe wants defense. Without “daddy” (the U.S.), it’s just bickering children. NATO is unsustainable as it is.Iran is copying Putin: talk peace, continue war. Their Supreme Leader has centralized control after internal splits, so any message from Iran now is unified. They’re signaling openness but won’t change battlefield actions. It’s a trick, not a transition. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the main objective behind Iran’s approach to negotiations with the United States?Why has Iran increased uranium enrichment beyond the 5% limit set by the JCPOA, and why is this difficult for the U.S. to understand?Do you think the Iranian foreign minister’s message on Fox News was understandable to the American public, especially those advocating military action against Iran?Given the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, do you see growing international pressure that could force a change in policy?What is really happening in Syria, and who truly represents the diverse ethnic and religious groups within the country?Mohammad Marandi:Iran engages in negotiations not because it expects peace with the U.S., but to demonstrate to the global south, BRICS nations, and allies like China and Russia that Iran is not the obstacle. The indirect format—such as using Oman as a mediator—allows Iran to show willingness while denying the U.S. the political win of direct talks. This strategy exposes U.S. bad faith when it shifts positions or resorts to aggression.Iran enriched to 60% as a response to Western actions and broken commitments. Technically, reaching 60% is the major hurdle; moving to 90% is relatively simple. The key achievement now is strategic ambiguity—no one knows exactly what Iran can do, especially after expelling the IAEA. The knowledge and industrial capacity to enrich remain intact, regardless of attacks on facilities.The U.S. elite only understands force, not diplomacy. However, Iran uses limited soft power to speak directly to the American people—not the government—to counter Western narratives. The goal is to make war politically costly for Washington by revealing that Iran is not the enemy portrayed in mainstream media.The longer the genocide in Gaza continues, the more it erodes the legitimacy of the West globally. While regimes like Turkey, Egypt, and Gulf states continue cooperating with Israel, public disgust is growing. Like Ukraine’s eventual collapse, the downfall of Western moral authority may be sudden once tipping points are reached, even if timing is unpredictable.The conflict in Syria is the result of a deliberate plan since 2012 to empower extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS—backed by Turkey, Qatar, Israel, and the U.S.—to destroy Syria’s unity. Jolani’s rule has led to sectarian violence against Alawites, Christians, Druze, and others, proving Hezbollah’s warnings correct. Now, regional populations are waking up to this reality, realizing that these extremists were tools of foreign powers, not liberators. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your take on Matt Gaetz’s criticism of Israel’s treatment of American Christians and Arab Americans, and the broader erosion of Israel’s global goodwill?Given the U.S. ambassador Mike Huckabee’s visit to the West Bank, what do you see as the current situation for Palestinians under Israeli occupation?Are there any recent U.S. presidents besides George H.W. Bush and Reagan who have shown willingness to challenge Israel’s demands?How sustainable is Israel’s current aggressive posture in the Middle East, especially with attacks on Eilat and Ben-Gurion Airport disrupting its economy?What do you make of Lindsey Graham’s threats against countries like China, India, and Brazil for buying Russian oil—do such statements reflect effective foreign policy?Paul Craig Roberts:The situation in Palestine is a U.S.-supported genocide. Matt Gaetz is rare in speaking out, but his words are ineffective because no sitting official can criticize Israel and survive politically. Only two House members, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, oppose aid to Israel, but they’re outliers in a system controlled by pro-Israel lobbies.The U.S. has zero foreign policy independence from Israel. Since the Cold War, American actions in the Middle East have aligned entirely with Israeli interests—destroying Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now pushing toward Iran. The U.S. is effectively a colony, led by Netanyahu through diplomatic, financial, and blackmail control.Eisenhower was the last president truly independent of Israel, forcing them out of Egypt in 1956. Even LBJ kowtowed after the USS Liberty attack. Reagan had some independence because Epstein-era blackmail didn’t exist yet. Post-Epstein, U.S. leaders are compromised; Netanyahu holds leverage over decades of honey-trap operations involving underage individuals used to entrap American elites.Israel cannot survive without total U.S. support—military, financial, and diplomatic. Its economy and security depend on American backing. Recent attacks from Yemen show vulnerability, but Israel doubles down on dependence, using blackmail and lobbying to maintain U.S. aid rather than seeking self-reliance.Lindsey Graham is a fool. Threatening major powers like China, India, and Brazil over cheap Russian oil is counterproductive and diplomatically absurd. It alienates allies, reveals U.S. weakness, and avoids the real solution: negotiating a mutual security agreement with Russia, which Trump refuses to pursue, letting the military-industrial complex prolong conflict for profit. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:How do you assess Europe’s move toward snapback sanctions under the JCPOA, and is it acting independently or primarily to serve Israel’s interests?What is your take on Iran’s recent coordination with Russia and China regarding its nuclear program, and how does this shift the geopolitical balance?Given past military cooperation since 2018, what strategic message does the upcoming CASIEX 2025 exercise in the Caspian Sea send to the West?Can the Trump administration realistically broker a grand security deal involving Ukraine and the Middle East, given current power dynamics?How effective are threats like economic coercion against countries such as China, India, and Brazil over their purchase of Russian oil?Larry C. Johnson:Europe appears reluctant to enforce snapback sanctions despite deadlines, suggesting it lacks real commitment—likely due to not wanting to escalate tensions or break from broader diplomatic channels.Iran’s open coordination with Russia and China reflects a strategic pivot toward multipolarity; it no longer seeks to act alone and is securing powerful allies for political and military backing.The joint military exercises signal a growing defense alignment among non-Western powers, emphasizing deterrence and showcasing advanced capabilities to counter Western pressure.No, the Trump administration has no leverage over Russia or Iran; Trump’s foreign policy relies on bluster rather than substance, and key players no longer fear U.S. threats.Threats to “crush” economies over Russian oil purchases are hollow; nations like China and India see these as imperialist tactics and are actively building alternative financial systems to resist U.S. pressure. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Are Indian policymakers aware of the risks of not acting in their own interests within BRICS?Could BRICS members see closer military collaboration beyond current agreements?How should Iran approach its foreign policy after recent attacks by the U.S. and Israel?What impact will the Zangezur Corridor have on Iran and Russia’s regional strategies?Is the current Iranian administration capable of effective strategic decision-making?Pepe Escobar:India’s internal contradictions and hesitations may cost them influence in BRICS if they don’t act decisively.Military collaboration could expand, especially if geopolitical pressure increases, though it’s not yet formalized.Iran is strengthening defense ties with China and Russia, acquiring advanced jets and preparing for long-term deterrence.If the corridor isolates Iran, both Iran and Russia may act together, but this risks escalation with Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Israel.The current administration seems hesitant and lacks clarity, possibly due to internal divisions and misplaced optimism about the U.S. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is happening between the Houthis and Israel?Why are the Yemenis so difficult to deal with militarily?How is the situation in Syria being interpreted differently by the US and Israel?Why is Turkey unable to communicate its difficulties in Syria with the US?What are the implications of the recent military pact between the UK and Germany?Amb. Chas Freeman:The Houthis have shut down the port of Eilat and occasionally attack Ben-Gurion Airport, taking concrete actions under the Genocide Convention.The Yemenis are resilient and adept at differentiating between commercial ships, causing significant damage and economic impact.The US and Israel have different interpretations of the Syrian situation, with Israel occupying territory and Turkey upset by Israeli actions.Turkey's leverage with the US is limited, especially under the current administration, leading to uncertainty and fear internationally.The UK-Germany pact reflects historic tensions and could lead to an escalation similar to pre-WWI alliances.Col. Larry Wilkerson:The Houthis have taken actions against Israeli ports, impacting economic stability, and are considered indomitable.Yemenis are resilient and have a history of courteous banditry, making them tough adversaries despite limited military power.The situation in Syria involves Israeli occupation and internal disputes, with the Syrian army attempting to mediate.The US's unpredictable foreign policy and military behavior cause concern among international leaders.The military pact between the UK and Germany highlights strategic threats and historical parallels, raising concerns about potential conflicts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your perspective on Yemen's capability to impact Israeli ports?How do you assess the potential for international sanctions on Israel?What role do you see Iran playing in regional air defense strategies?How do you interpret the dynamics between the Druze community and Israeli military integration?What are your thoughts on the impact of Western military support for Ukraine?Larry C. Johnson:Yemen’s actions reflect resilience and determination despite challenges.Sanctions could gain traction but depend on global political alignment.Iran’s air defense priorities focus on comprehensive threat interception.The Druze community’s stance is evolving, with some identifying more as Palestinian.Western support for Ukraine has limitations and risks turning the country into a proxy battleground. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Can you summarize the key points of Dimitri Orlov’s recent article “How Donald Went to War”?What is Orlov’s perspective on Trump’s ability to influence the outcome of the Ukraine conflict?How does Orlov view the MAGA movement and its impact on U.S. foreign policy?What challenges does Orlov identify in revitalizing U.S. industry, especially regarding gender roles and drug use?How does Orlov foresee Russia handling the future of Ukraine, particularly the Western region?Dmitry Orlov:The article critiques U.S. involvement in Ukraine as misguided, predicting inevitable Russian victory and NATO defeat. It also highlights Trump’s inability to change the trajectory of the conflict.Trump cannot significantly alter the Ukraine situation because he lacks leverage over Ukraine or Russia, and U.S. support for Ukraine is depleting resources needed elsewhere, like in Israel.MAGA has failed both domestically and internationally; Trump’s policies were unrealistic, and his administration has largely abandoned fiscal conservatism while failing to reduce U.S. global entanglements.U.S. industrial decline is tied to cultural shifts favoring women and soft skills, along with widespread drug use, making it difficult to rebuild a disciplined workforce necessary for manufacturing.Russia will likely demilitarize and denazify eastern Ukraine, while the western part may become depopulated and lawless, eventually resettled by Russia if left unclaimed by the West. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the current geopolitical tensions involving Ukraine and Russia, particularly regarding cross-border military actions?How do you evaluate the technological and military capabilities of Western nations compared to Russia and other global powers?What are the implications of U.S. involvement in Ukraine for global strategic balances and international relations?How do you perceive the leadership qualities of key political figures like Donald Trump and their impact on foreign policy decisions?What is your view on the potential for broader military conflicts, such as a possible World War III, given current global tensions?Andrei Martyanov:The situation involving Ukraine and Russia is marked by significant military escalation, with deep strikes into Russian territory raising concerns about further conflict expansion. However, these actions are not new, as Ukraine has been conducting such operations for some time.Western nations, particularly the U.S., still possess significant technological capabilities, especially in space and unmanned systems, but their military-industrial capacity is declining. European countries, like Germany, lack the ability to produce advanced military systems, and even France, despite having a credible nuclear deterrent, has limited capacity compared to global powers like Russia and China.U.S. involvement in Ukraine has strained its military and political credibility. The U.S. is seen as being driven by a flawed strategic understanding and is increasingly viewed as being incapable of sustaining large-scale military operations. This has weakened its global influence and exposed internal weaknesses.Figures like Donald Trump are often criticized for lacking genuine strategic understanding and being influenced by personal interests and external manipulation. There is skepticism about the competence of Western leaders, with many being seen as products of a failing system.While there is concern about the potential for larger conflicts, particularly with nuclear-armed powers, the likelihood of a full-scale World War III remains low. Russia, for instance, has shown restraint despite provocations, and the global balance of power makes such a conflict unlikely, though regional confrontations remain a risk. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the impact of Trump's policies on universities and public opinion regarding Netanyahu's administration?How does the situation in Israel with Netanyahu's leadership affect Jewish populations globally?What is the implication of European countries' military spending on their economies?How does Trump's approach to Ukraine influence American foreign policy?In what ways does the U.S. competition with China affect the automotive industry?Michael Hudson:Trump's policies attempt to stifle criticism of Netanyahu by influencing academic freedom and public discourse.Netanyahu's leadership polarizes Jewish communities, with many progressive Jews opposing his policies.Increased military spending strains European economies, leading to reduced social spending and economic growth.Trump's approach to Ukraine focuses on economic leverage, pushing European allies to fund and manage the conflict.U.S.-China competition highlights inefficiencies in the American automotive industry, threatening its global standing.Richard Wolff:Trump's policies aim to control narratives around Israel, affecting free speech and academic environments in the U.S.The actions of Netanyahu's government provoke divisions within the global Jewish community, especially among progressive groups.European militarization risks economic downturns as funds are diverted from social programs to defense.Trump's foreign policy in Ukraine emphasizes American economic interests, urging Europe to take more responsibility.The U.S. automotive industry faces significant challenges from Chinese competition, necessitating innovation and policy changes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the current situation in Syria, and what role are external powers playing?How is the U.S. relationship with Israel impacting regional stability?What is the significance of the British role in the Middle East?How are Iran-Russia-China relations evolving amid geopolitical tensions?What are the implications of Western actions in Ukraine for global stability?Alex Krainer:The situation in Syria is worsening, with regional rivalries and external interference, particularly from the UK, fueling instability.U.S. support for Israel is increasingly seen as a liability, with some questioning its strategic value amid shifting alliances.The UK is actively involved in stirring conflict, including in Syria, as part of broader efforts to destabilize the region and counter rival powers.Russia, China, and Iran are strengthening cooperation, viewing the West's actions as existential threats, making their alliance more resilient.The war in Ukraine is being prolonged by Western support for Kyiv, with dangerous escalations, including potential nuclear risks, on the horizon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the significance of Trump’s reported discussions with Zelensky about attacking Moscow?How does Trump’s approach to Ukraine differ from previous administrations?What role do European allies play in escalating the conflict with Russia?What are the implications of secondary sanctions on countries like China and India?How does Azerbaijan factor into the broader geopolitical conflict involving Russia and Iran?John Helmer:Trump’s reported discussions with Zelensky indicate a potential escalation, but his inconsistent statements and mental capacity raise doubts about U.S. strategy.Trump’s approach mirrors Biden’s in arming Ukraine but adds unpredictability, with threats of direct attacks on Russia and transactional diplomacy.European allies, particularly Germany, are being pressured to fund and supply weapons, effectively acting as intermediaries for U.S. military support to Ukraine.Secondary sanctions on China and India aim to cut off Russia’s oil revenue, but these measures are unlikely to succeed due to strong economic ties.Azerbaijan’s strategic location and tensions with Russia and Iran make it a focal point for external powers like Israel, Turkey, and the U.S., threatening regional stability. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is happening in Syria, particularly in the region of Sweda?What role do Turkey and Qatar play in the current situation in Syria?How does the Druze population in the Golan Heights interact with events in Syria?What does Israel aim to achieve in the region, especially regarding Syria?What is the significance of Netanyahu’s recent visit to the United States?Laith Marouf:In Syria, particularly in Sweda, there is ongoing conflict involving attacks by HTS and other groups, with Israel appearing to film some events. The Druze population in the region remains resilient and refuses to collaborate with Israel.Turkey and Qatar, through Al Jazeera, appear to be portraying the Druze population in a negative light and are indirectly supporting HTS, which collaborates with Israel despite previous claims of opposing it.The Druze in the Golan Heights, though under Israeli control, maintain strong Syrian identity and have actively resisted Israeli influence, with some even entering Syria to support their kin in Sweda.Israel aims to destabilize Syria by exploiting sectarian divisions and creating excuses for intervention. The Druze resistance in Sweda is seen as a threat to these plans.Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. focused on securing support, particularly regarding the Epstein investigation and potential military actions. However, the U.S. has limited options without risking global conflict, so Israel may resort to more sectarian and terrorist tactics in the region. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your perspective on the recent developments in U.S.-Russia relations following Trump's ultimatum?How do you interpret the internal divisions within MAGA and their implications for Trump's foreign policy?Can you analyze the potential consequences of Germany acquiring long-range missiles for the Ukraine conflict?How might the ongoing conflict in Gaza affect regional stability and international diplomacy?What are your thoughts on the recent polls indicating increased support for the Iranian government despite external pressures?Col. Larry Wilkerson:The recent developments in U.S.-Russia relations reflect a complex interplay of domestic politics and international strategy, with Trump's ultimatum likely aimed at appeasing his base rather than achieving concrete diplomatic outcomes.The internal divisions within MAGA highlight the challenges Trump faces in maintaining cohesion among his supporters, especially as key figures like Tucker Carlson challenge the narrative, which could undermine his foreign policy initiatives.Germany acquiring long-range missiles could escalate tensions in the Ukraine conflict, potentially provoking a stronger response from Russia and complicating diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation.The ongoing conflict in Gaza risks further destabilizing the region, exacerbating humanitarian crises, and straining international relations, particularly as global public opinion increasingly turns against Israel's actions.The recent polls suggesting increased support for the Iranian government may reflect a rally-around-the-flag effect in response to external pressures, but they may not fully capture the complexities of internal dissent and economic challenges faced by the regime. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the current public sentiment in Iran following the Israeli attack, and how has it affected national unity?How did Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. impact his domestic political position amid growing challenges?What are your thoughts on Trump’s handling of Ukraine aid and its implications for regional stability?Do you think mainstream Western media is successfully creating divisions between Iran and Russia?How prepared is Iran’s military to respond to potential future attacks from Israel?Mohammad Marandi:Iranian public sentiment has shifted dramatically toward national unity, pride, religiosity, and support for the government and armed forces after the Israeli attack. Polls show a significant rise in internal cohesion and belief in victory.Netanyahu is facing serious domestic issues after losing the war against Iran. His prolonged stay in the U.S. reflects desperation, especially with rising global condemnation and internal instability in Israel.Trump’s administration continues to fund wars in Ukraine and for Israel, but resources are not infinite. The intensification of these conflicts weakens the West and strengthens alliances like Iran-Russia-China.Western media attempts to divide Iran and Russia by spreading false reports, but both countries reject such narratives. These efforts aim to weaken BRICS and anti-imperialist alliances.Iran is preparing for future threats by strengthening its air defense systems and improving offensive capabilities. It knows Israel’s tactics and will strike harder if attacked again. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of Trump’s ultimatum to Russia and its implications?How do you interpret Germany’s push for long-range Typhoon missiles and its impact on Russia?What are your thoughts on Zelensky's role in the Ukraine conflict and his refusal to negotiate?How do you evaluate reports about Trump urging Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory?What is your view on Tim Weiner’s narrative regarding CIA involvement in Ukraine?Scott Ritter:Trump’s ultimatum is meaningless posturing; Russia has dismissed it outright, showing Trump lacks geopolitical leverage.Germany’s pursuit of Typhoon missiles is reckless and dangerous; Russia will respond decisively if threatened.Zelensky is a puppet controlled by external forces; he lacks legitimacy and autonomy in decision-making.Reports of Trump urging strikes on Russia are likely fabricated; such actions would provoke catastrophic consequences.Tim Weiner’s account is propaganda favoring the CIA; his narrative is biased and untrustworthy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.