Dialogue Works

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.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Is Azerbaijan on the path of becoming like Georgia or something different?How does Azerbaijan connect to regional geopolitics through the north-south corridor between Iran and Russia?What role is China playing in shaping the region, particularly involving Azerbaijan?Why has Azerbaijan suddenly become more prominent in regional discussions?What are the implications of recent military interactions, such as the conflict between Iran and Israel using Azerbaijani territory?Lasha Kasradze:It's not necessarily Azerbaijan but Armenia that may end up in a position similar to Georgia in 2008 due to geopolitical shifts.Azerbaijan plays a key role in the north-south corridor connecting Iran and Russia, enhancing its geoeconomic importance.China watches carefully and supports Russia indirectly, avoiding direct confrontation while pursuing its own regional interests.Azerbaijan has gained prominence due to its victory over Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh and strengthened alliances with Turkey and the West.Recent military actions highlight Azerbaijan’s growing strategic value to external powers, though it still avoids directly challenging Russia. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What was the significance of Donald Trump’s recent announcement regarding Ukraine and Europe?How do you interpret Trump’s claim that European countries, especially Germany, are enthusiastic about supporting Ukraine?Do you believe European nations are genuinely committed to funding weapons for Ukraine, or is there a hidden agenda?Could Trump’s policies on Ukraine potentially harm his support base in the U.S., particularly among MAGA supporters?Is Europe preparing for escalation in the Ukraine conflict, and how effective will their military buildup be against Russia?Larry Johnson:Trump’s announcement is largely symbolic and lacks substance—referred to as a “nothing burger.” It seems aimed at political posturing rather than real policy change.The idea that European leaders are genuinely enthusiastic is questionable. Larry suggests they may not be able to afford these commitments and might rely on frozen Russian assets to fund them.European commitments are likely verbal and lack financial viability. There may be behind-the-scenes strategies to use seized Russian funds, but actual payments remain unlikely.Trump has already damaged his credibility, especially with MAGA supporters, due to issues like the Epstein case and inconsistent foreign policy messaging.Europe’s military buildup is unrealistic and driven more by political motives than strategic planning. Russia currently holds a clear military advantage in several key areas. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your interpretation of Trump’s stance on U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war?How do you see the impact of Trump’s proposed 100% tariffs on global trade dynamics?What role do you think Netanyahu played during his meetings with Trump?How credible do you find the idea that Trump might be influenced by powerful interest groups?What are your thoughts on the potential consequences of withholding the Epstein client list?Paul Craig Roberts:Trump is not ending the war but shifting financial responsibility to Europe, ensuring military profits continue.Tariffs have no real impact on Russia but will anger other nations and accelerate de-dollarization.Netanyahu may have pressured Trump to suppress Epstein-related files that could expose high-level connections.The "deep state" and corporate interests clearly constrain Trump, neutralizing many of his promises within months.Withholding the Epstein files protects powerful elites, undermines trust in government, and reveals systemic corruption. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the current U.S. policy toward Ukraine, particularly regarding military aid and reimbursement by European countries?How do you interpret Lindsey Graham’s statement about a turning point in U.S. relations with Russia, especially concerning arms sales to Europe?Do you believe Macron’s push to double France's defense budget is justified, and where should the funding come from?Is there a realistic possibility of Russia targeting France, as claimed by French military leadership?What are the long-term implications of NATO's increased defense spending on European populations?Col. Jacques Baud:The U.S. policy under Trump shifts conflict into business by selling military equipment to Europe and Ukraine, making them reimburse costs. This contrasts sharply with Biden’s approach.Graham highlights a shift in U.S. strategy toward arming allies heavily against Russia, funded by European nations rather than the U.S., signaling strategic realignment.Macron's call to increase defense budgets is not new but raises concerns about diverting funds from social programs, which may negatively impact European societies.Claims that France is a primary Russian target lack logic or clear justification, suggesting such narratives aim to justify increased military spending rather than reflect reality.NATO’s push for higher defense spending will strain economies already facing debt and social issues, especially in Western Europe, leading to potential unrest and resource reallocation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami AlkhorshidWhat is your take on the Axios report about Putin urging Iran to accept a zero-enrichment deal with the U.S.?How do you assess the recent 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel, particularly Netanyahu’s goal of regime change?Do you think Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. is related to Trump’s domestic issues like the Epstein file revelations?How do you interpret the political dynamics in Washington regarding sanctions against Russia, especially Lindsey Graham’s push for “bone-crushing” measures?What is your view on the implications of Trump sending limited military aid to Ukraine and how it affects the war's trajectory?Mark Sleboda:The Axios story lacks credible sources and fits a pattern of Western disinformation aimed at destabilizing Iran-Russia relations.The 12-day war was an attempted decapitation strike by Israel but failed due to Iranian resilience and resulted in rallying public support around the government.While Trump faces internal pressures, Netanyahu’s visit is more about leveraging U.S. support for further military action against Iran rather than covering up scandals.U.S. lawmakers like Graham are pushing unrealistic sanctions that target global trade partners of Russia, showing ignorance of global market realities and likely to fail.The U.S. is constrained militarily, especially in air defense capabilities, making any significant shift in Ukraine unlikely; sending minimal weapons is largely symbolic and ineffective. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What are the crucial issues in the current U.S.-China relationship?How do Chinese officials perceive the differences between the U.S. and China?What is Europe’s stance on the Ukraine conflict, and how effective is it?How do you view Trump’s foreign policy decisions regarding Brazil and Japan?What is Iran’s position toward potential negotiations with the U.S.?Amb. Chas Freeman:The U.S. has chosen China as an adversary due to internal dissatisfaction, not global realities, with both political parties aligned against China despite its economic rise.Chinese leaders see U.S. actions as irrational and driven by pride over losing dominance, misunderstanding China’s governance model and policies.Europe is divided and lacks a coherent strategy in Ukraine, continuing ineffective support while ignoring greater humanitarian crises elsewhere.Trump’s erratic behavior alienates allies like Brazil and Japan, undermining diplomacy and damaging long-standing international relationships.Iran wants dialogue but sees no sincerity or guarantees from the U.S., which remains under Israeli influence, blocking meaningful engagement. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the current situation in Ukraine, and why is Russia advancing?How effective is Western support for Ukraine, especially regarding military aid?Is Europe capable of standing up to Russia militarily?What are the implications of Trump's policies toward Ukraine and Russia?Is there a realistic path to ending the war in Ukraine?Larry C. Johnson:Russia is making significant advances in Ukraine due to superior military pressure, particularly in Zaporizhia and other regions, while Ukraine’s air defenses are overwhelmed.Western support, including limited aid like 10 Patriot missiles, is insufficient against Russia’s scale of attacks and ineffective in halting its progress.Europe is described as incapable of matching Russia militarily and appears increasingly divided or ineffective in responding to the crisis.Trump’s erratic behavior and lack of coherent strategy raise concerns, with his actions seen as potentially worsening the conflict and global instability.A military defeat of Ukraine seems likely unless there is a major shift, as Russia intensifies operations and aims to consolidate territorial gains. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Why does Donald Trump praise Putin during their conversations, despite feeling let down by Russia's actions?Is there confusion in Washington about who is making key decisions, such as halting ammunition shipments to Ukraine?How much does Trump truly understand about the complexities of the Ukraine conflict and foreign policy in general?Who might be influencing Trump’s foreign policy behind the scenes, and why has Steve Witkoff seemingly lost influence?Given Israel’s strong influence over U.S. policy, do you believe Trump could engage in direct talks with Iran despite Israeli objections?Graham E. Fuller:Trump likely praises Putin instinctively but grows frustrated as he realizes Putin’s demands are unreasonable and non-negotiable.There appears to be internal confusion and lack of clarity in the Trump administration, especially on major foreign policy decisions like military aid to Ukraine.Trump receives intelligence reports, but his erratic nature and reliance on personal instincts mean his understanding is inconsistent and unpredictable.Steve Witkoff had significant influence due to his diplomatic approach, but others like Rubio may now be sidelining him, possibly with backing from pro-Israel factions.Despite Israeli pressure, Trump may still consider negotiations with Iran if he believes a hardline approach could lead to future diplomatic gains or regional stability. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the significance of the BRICS summit in Brazil, particularly regarding global economic dynamics?How do tariffs imposed by the U.S., such as those on Brazil, affect international trade and relations?Why are the BRICS countries struggling to create a unified alternative to the Western economic system?What role does the U.S. play in dividing and weakening the BRICS alliance through economic policies?How does the concept of "grabization" explain the current economic behavior of the U.S. and its allies?Michael Hudson:The BRICS summit highlights the shift from U.S.-dominated globalization to a multipolar world where countries seek independence from Western financial systems.Tariffs like those imposed on Brazil aim to bully nations into submission, but they also push BRICS countries to strengthen internal trade and reduce reliance on the U.S.BRICS lacks a clear blueprint for breaking away from neoliberalism, with members more reactive than proactive in forming new economic institutions.The U.S. exploits divisions within BRICS—especially using India and Brazil—to prevent a united front against American economic dominance.“Grabization” refers to elites stripping resources for short-term gain, mirroring the Soviet Union’s collapse and currently seen in U.S. policies.Richard Wolff:The BRICS’ achievements, like $1 trillion in internal trade, show progress despite differences, partly driven by Trump’s tariffs pushing them together.Tariffs primarily hurt American consumers, not foreign exporters, creating inflationary pressures that could undermine U.S. competitiveness.BRICS remains divided due to geopolitical maneuvering, similar to how European distrust hampers unity among nations.Lula’s stance on globalization emphasizes that the issue isn’t globalization itself, but U.S. imperialism using it for domination.BRICS must redefine economic development beyond capitalism, embracing cooperative models that prioritize community over profit-driven monopolies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the recent tensions between the U.S. and Russia?How do you interpret Trump’s rhetoric toward Putin and its implications?What role does the sanctions bill on Russia play in U.S. foreign policy?How effective has the Trump administration been in dealing with international conflicts?What are your thoughts on the geopolitical impact of the BRICS summit?Alex Krainer:Trump's rhetoric appears inconsistent, making it hard to gauge genuine policy intentions.His statements about Putin seem tailored for domestic audiences rather than reflecting real diplomatic progress.The sanctions bill highlights internal divisions within the administration, as Trump maintains discretionary control.The administration struggles with global perception due to erratic messaging and unclear strategic goals.The BRICS summit reflects a growing push for multipolarity, challenging Western dominance in global affairs. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:How do you interpret the current trajectory of U.S. imperialism in comparison to historical British imperialism?What are your thoughts on the decline of American industrial and military capabilities?How significant is the transformation within BRICS, especially with countries like Indonesia joining?What is your view on Donald Trump's inconsistent foreign policy statements, particularly regarding Ukraine?How do you assess Germany’s militarization efforts and their implications for Russia?Andrei Martyanov:The U.S. has degenerated into an empire due to financial capitalism and imperial overreach, mirroring the British Empire but lacking sustainable economic foundations.The U.S. lacks real industrial capacity and operational military experience, rendering its forces ineffective against modern adversaries like Russia.BRICS represents a major shift toward a multipolar world order, challenging Western-dominated institutions and moving toward independent financial systems.Trump operates from a delusional worldview, driven by narcissism and ignorance of geopolitics, making his policies erratic and untrustworthy.Germany's militarization is a joke; its industry is outdated, and its political elite harbor deep anti-Russian sentiments rooted in WWII history. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the significance of Donald Trump’s changing stance on sending weapons to Ukraine?How does Trump’s rhetoric and behavior affect U.S.-Russia relations?Is Trump’s approach to foreign policy driven by domestic political considerations?What role does NATO play in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine?How might the current geopolitical tensions impact global stability?John Helmer:Trump’s shifting stance reflects internal pressures within Washington and his administration's lack of a coherent strategy.His rhetoric, including expletives and personal attacks, undermines diplomatic efforts and escalates tensions with Russia.Yes, Trump is likely adjusting his foreign policy to appeal to his political base and boost his re-election prospects.NATO remains a key player, but its unity is tested as member states differ on military support for Ukraine.The situation could lead to further fragmentation in international relations and increase the risk of broader conflict. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:How effective was BRICS in addressing the Gaza conflict, especially with India’s involvement?Do you think the situation in Syria could lead to a regime change due to external pressures?What is your view on the West's involvement in Lebanon and Syria and its impact on regional stability?How do you assess Hezbollah's current strength and preparedness after recent setbacks?What are your thoughts on Netanyahu's visit to the U.S. and its implications for the Middle East?Laith Marouf:BRICS managed to issue a strong statement calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, despite India’s previous alignment with Israel. Economic ties within BRICS likely influenced India’s stance.The Syrian government led by HTS is unstable and unlikely to last long due to internal weaknesses and external conflicts among its backers.Western involvement in Lebanon and Syria aims to destabilize the region, but their contradictory strategies are counterproductive and strengthening resistance movements.Hezbollah has restructured into smaller cells and is rearming rapidly, preparing for potential conflicts with both Wahhabi groups and Israel.Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. reflects efforts to secure further support, but Israel's aggressive policies are increasingly isolated globally. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the BRICS Summit's significance in challenging Western dominance?How do you view the role of tariffs and sanctions as tools of economic pressure by the West?Why do you think Donald Trump has shifted his stance on foreign policy since entering office?Do you believe the U.S. government is under significant influence from external actors like Israel?What are your thoughts on the potential viability of a third political party in the United States?Paul Craig Roberts:BRICS represents a move toward sovereignty and independence from Western control, which is a positive development for global diversity.Tariffs can be legitimate tools for trade protection, but when used aggressively, they become similar to sanctions and reflect bullying tactics.Trump faces internal pressures and powerful interest groups that limit his ability to fulfill campaign promises.Yes, the U.S. appears to prioritize Israeli interests in its foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.A third party could offer an alternative, but it would face immense financial and media challenges to gain traction. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What are the key challenges facing the BRICS nations in establishing a viable alternative to the IMF?How effective is the U.S. strategy of using tariffs and sanctions as tools of economic diplomacy?What implications does the expansion of BRICS have for global economic governance?How might the use of national currencies in international trade impact dollar dominance?What role does predictability play in international economic relations, particularly concerning U.S. foreign policy?Scott Ritter:The establishment of a BRICS bank aims to provide an alternative to Western-dominated financial institutions, though it's still far from matching their influence.U.S. tariffs and sanctions often lack effectiveness due to global economic interdependence and can provoke retaliatory measures rather than compliance.BRICS expansion signifies a shift towards multipolarity, challenging existing power structures but requiring greater institutional coherence.Moving away from dollar dependency involves significant logistical and geopolitical challenges, yet regional powers are increasingly exploring alternatives.Predictability in policy fosters stable international relations; erratic shifts in U.S. policy can undermine trust and hinder long-term cooperation with other nations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What was Iran’s main goal at the BRICS summit, and did it achieve what it wanted?Do you think BRICS should take on responsibilities similar to the UN in global affairs?Can Donald Trump push Netanyahu toward a ceasefire in Gaza?Is the mainstream media legitimizing genocide in Gaza by changing its narrative?Why is it so hard for the West to understand that Iran does not intend to attack the U.S. directly?Mohammad Marandi:Iran's goal at BRICS was to build alliances but relies mainly on self-reliance; the summit declaration was sufficient but not assertive enough.BRICS could move in that direction, but internal divisions and political changes may affect its path.Unlikely; images of Trump praising Netanyahu suggest poor prospects for Gaza, and real change will come from battlefield realities.Western media is controlled by elites and has abandoned truth, openly justifying atrocities in Gaza without accountability.The West fabricates narratives against Iran; these are tools of propaganda to justify aggression and regime change. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your perspective on the current state of U.S.-Iran relations?How do you view the role of Western intelligence in regional conflicts?What are your thoughts on the recent tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran?How do you assess the impact of NATO's expansion on global stability?What is your opinion on the economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs?Larry C. Johnson:The U.S.-Iran relationship remains strained due to geopolitical rivalry and sanctions, with limited prospects for near-term improvement.Western intelligence operations often exacerbate regional tensions, driven by strategic interests rather than neutrality.Recent tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran reflect broader geopolitical manipulation, particularly involving external actors like Turkey and Israel.NATO's expansion has heightened global instability by provoking Russia and undermining diplomatic efforts in Eastern Europe.Trump’s tariffs have disrupted trade, hurt small businesses, and contributed to economic uncertainty without clear long-term benefits. 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 Donald Trump's decision to halt sending more weapons to Ukraine and its potential impact on the conflict?How do you interpret Macron’s recent outreach to Putin, and does it signal a shift in European policy toward seeking a diplomatic resolution?Given the West’s attempts to draw divisions between Iran, Russia, and China, how solid is the current alignment among these countries?What is your perspective on the situation involving Azerbaijan, especially regarding reports of Israeli and Turkish influence and its implications for regional stability?Considering Western reliance on indirect strategies and proxy conflicts, do you foresee new tensions emerging in regions beyond Ukraine and the Middle East?Andrei Martianov:Trump’s decision reflects U.S. military-industrial limitations rather than goodwill. The U.S. is running out of resources and cannot sustain arms deliveries.Macron’s call to Putin stems from fear, not diplomacy. Europe is panicking as it realizes the war is unwinnable and energy vulnerabilities are critical.The West’s narrative attempting to divide Iran, Russia, and China is false. These nations are closely aligned, especially after recent events like the Iranian-Israeli conflict.Azerbaijan’s actions are influenced by Turkey and Israel. However, Russia and Iran have leverage and will act decisively if provoked, given their strategic interests.Yes, the West will continue using destabilization tactics elsewhere, particularly in Central Asia and through radical Islamist groups, due to its military and industrial impotence. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the significance of Trump's budget deficit bill in relation to dollar hegemony?How does Trump's tariff policy impact the U.S. economy and global trade dynamics?Why are foreign investors beginning to move away from the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds?What role does income inequality play in destabilizing the U.S. economy?How might the BRICS nations reshape global economic power structures?Michael Hudson:Trump’s bill, combined with his tariff policies, threatens dollar hegemony by increasing budget deficits and lowering the dollar’s value, making it less attractive to foreign investors.Tariffs raise import prices and harm consumers while failing to revive U.S. manufacturing due to high domestic production costs.Foreign investors are moving away from the dollar due to declining exchange rates, rising inflation, and fears of further devaluation.Income inequality is worsening as tax cuts favor the wealthy while social programs for the poor are cut, creating social instability.The BRICS nations are building an alternative financial system outside Western control, reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar and institutions like the IMF.Richard Wolff:The decline in the dollar reflects a loss of confidence in U.S. economic policy and its long-term stability, accelerating capital flight.Tariff-driven protectionism disrupts global supply chains and fails to bring back manufacturing because U.S. production costs remain too high.China’s economic model focuses on state-led development and infrastructure investment rather than speculative finance, offering a viable alternative to Western capitalism.BRICS growth signals a shift toward a multipolar world where countries can trade and develop without depending on the United States or Europe.The U.S. response—military spending and sanctions—reflects declining economic influence and a desperate attempt to maintain global dominance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your reaction to the U.S. decision to hold back weapons from Ukraine, and how does this align with NATO's stance?How do you interpret Donald Trump’s support for Netanyahu despite Israel’s weakened position internationally?What are the implications of Iran cutting ties with the IAEA, especially in terms of global nuclear oversight?Do you believe the tensions between Azerbaijan and Russia/Iran are being manipulated by external forces like the UK?What do you think is France’s main objective in reaching out to Putin after years of silence?Alex Krainer:The U.S. decision reflects an "America First" policy, prioritizing domestic defense needs and signaling a shift away from globalist military engagements.Trump supports Netanyahu because a weakened but still-powerful Netanyahu may be more inclined to negotiate peace, whereas an unknown successor could be more radical.Iran’s withdrawal from IAEA cooperation shows distrust in international institutions that have been weaponized against them, and it may lead to demands for equal scrutiny on countries like Israel.Yes, the UK appears to be stirring tensions between Azerbaijan, Russia, and Iran as part of a broader geopolitical strategy to destabilize Eurasia.France likely wants to negotiate with Russia to prevent further advances in Ukraine and preserve Western control over strategic areas like Odessa and the Black Sea coast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the current situation regarding potential Israeli attacks on Iran, and how are Iranians perceiving this threat?How do you interpret Trump's recent statements about Netanyahu and the judiciary in Israel?Is there a possibility of the U.S. being able to control Netanyahu’s actions in the current crisis?How effective were the Israeli strikes on Iran, and what strategic assets remain intact?What is Iran’s stance toward countries like Azerbaijan that allowed Israeli use of their airspace?Mohammad Marandi:The Israeli regime is likely preparing for another attack, but Iran is now more prepared and will respond much harder if attacked again.Trump may want Netanyahu to feel more secure to avoid escalation, not out of goodwill, but because he understands the danger of another round of fighting.The U.S. cannot win a war against Iran; any large-scale conflict would be devastating for the U.S. and the world, and Iran is in a commanding position globally.Israeli strikes had limited success; most key Iranian military assets, especially underground facilities, remain intact and operational.Iran respects Azerbaijan’s sovereignty but expects the same in return; however, Aliyev’s alignment with Israel has angered many Azeris in Iran and weakened his position. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:How do you assess the current dynamics between Iran and Israel, and who holds the strategic advantage?Do you believe the U.S. involvement in the Middle East has weakened its global military and economic position?How are internal factions in Iran responding to increased pressure from Western powers?What impact does the weakening of pro-Western factions have on Iran’s foreign policy direction?Could recent events lead Iran to reconsider its stance on nuclear weapons development?John Helmer:In the short term, both sides inflicted damage, but in the long run, Iran holds the advantage due to resilience and geographic compactness.Yes, the U.S. is facing logistical, financial, and technological constraints due to simultaneous conflicts and aid distribution limits.Pro-Western factions in Iran are losing influence as sanctions and military failures expose their weaknesses.The failure of pro-Western groups has shifted Iran’s policy toward self-reliance and closer ties with non-Western allies like Russia and China.While Iran may not rush to build a nuclear weapon, it could reconsider its stance if pressured further or if regional security demands it.Ray McGowan:Iran has proven it can withstand Israeli attacks, which boosts its regional standing and weakens Israel’s deterrence.The U.S. is overextended and unable to sustain multiple fronts, especially with dwindling resources and public support.Pro-Western elites in Iran are under pressure, but internal politics remain complex and resistant to quick shifts.Sanctions have not crippled Russia but have fractured its elite class, leading to a more anti-Western economic and political alignment.Iran may seek advanced defense technology from Russia and China rather than escalate immediately, preferring strategic patience. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the push to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon?How do you view the reality of disarming Hezbollah amidst rising tensions?What are your thoughts on Iran's role in confronting Israel and the U.S.?Is there any possibility of Israel launching another attack on Iran?How do you evaluate the West’s narrative collapsing in the Middle East?Leith Maruf:The idea of disarming Hezbollah is unrealistic; the population is arming itself, and no one trusts Wahhabi death squads.The Lebanese people are hardened against disarmament; sleeper cells and chaos are more likely than peaceful resolution.Iran’s retaliation uplifted regional morale and proved its military capability against Western technologies.Israel won’t launch a full-scale attack soon; instead, they may rely on terrorism and sleeper cells due to recent defeats.The West’s dominance is crumbling; global consciousness has shifted, exposing their hypocrisy and accelerating their decline. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What's your assessment of the current tensions between Iran and Israel, and are we heading towards new attacks?Do you believe that Donald Trump would understand the potential for a prolonged conflict with Iran?How effective do you think Israeli intelligence is in influencing U.S. policy towards Iran?Considering past conflicts, how does Iran's resilience compare to that of Iraq and Syria?What are your thoughts on the role of democracy within Iran's political system?Scott Ritter:The tensions are part of a broader U.S.-Israel strategy aimed at regime change in Iran, using the nuclear program as a pretext. Yes, we may see more attacks designed to destabilize Iran.There's little understanding within the Trump administration about the complexities of Iran; they lack genuine knowledge, making informed decisions unlikely.Israeli intelligence has significantly influenced U.S. policy, reverting to flawed models like the Nasrallah model, which assumes decapitation leads to collapse—this won't work in Iran.Iran is more resilient than Iraq and Syria due to its historical unity and national identity, which hasn't been defeated or fragmented.Iran's political system includes democratic elements with elected officials, though it's guided by a supreme leader; this structure provides stability despite external pressures. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of Trump’s current policy toward Iran, and do you expect further attacks?How do you interpret the recent military activity involving planes heading to Israel, and could it signal a new attack on Iran?Do you believe negotiations with the U.S. under Trump are viable, or has trust been irreparably damaged?What role does Israel play in escalating tensions, and how likely is it that they will drag the U.S. into direct conflict?How do you view the geopolitical alignment between Iran, Russia, and China, and what does it mean for future stability?Larry C. Johnson:Trump is not finished with Iran; he will look for excuses to escalate, and Iran must remain vigilant and prepared for more aggression.The increased flights to Israel suggest preparations for another strike, but Iran has shown resilience and strategic restraint in past responses.Negotiations under Trump are pointless—there’s no trust, and the U.S. has consistently broken agreements and pursued regime change.Israel is pushing for escalation, possibly through false-flag operations, and Trump may be manipulated into deeper involvement despite public fatigue.Iran’s alliance with Russia and China is strategic and necessary; these relationships provide critical support against Western pressure and help balance global power. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What were Israel’s main objectives in attacking Iran, and did they achieve them?How did the U.S. involvement in the conflict align with Israeli goals?Did the conflict lead to greater unity within Iranian society?How has the international community responded to the attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities?What does this conflict reveal about Israel’s national security strategy?Col. Jacques Baud:Israel aimed to destabilize Iran politically, involve the U.S. militarily, and damage Iran’s nuclear program, but none of these objectives were fully achieved.The U.S. provided minimal support, reluctant to be deeply involved, suggesting a limited alignment with Israeli interests.Despite internal divisions, the conflict strengthened national unity in Iran, even among minority groups like the Jewish community.International institutions like the IAEA failed to respond effectively, highlighting a collapse in global legal and ethical order.Israel’s strategy remains overly militaristic and disconnected from regional realities, making long-term stability unlikely. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your perspective on the recent conflict between Iran and Israel, and how do you interpret the U.S.'s involvement?How do you assess the idea that the attacks were choreographed rather than genuine military actions?What are your thoughts on Trump’s role in managing the conflict and his broader foreign policy approach?Do you believe the outcome of this conflict benefits Iran, and if so, why?How do you view the potential long-term consequences of this conflict for regional stability and international relations?Alex Krainer:The conflict seems staged or exaggerated to serve political goals, with minimal real damage inflicted by either side.Intelligence and precision displayed by Iran’s missile program indicate a strong deterrent capability without needing nuclear weapons.Trump appears to be pursuing a strategy of reducing U.S. global entanglements, favoring deals over prolonged conflicts.Iran emerges stronger diplomatically, while Israel appears weakened economically and militarily from the conflict.The future may involve a shift toward multipolar diplomacy, with the U.S. engaging more with Russia, China, and Iran for global stability. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your understanding of the recent developments between Iran and Israel, especially regarding the involvement of ISIS and the lack of a real ceasefire?Why did Iran choose not to use cruise missiles in its attack on Israel despite possessing them?How effective are the Patriot missile systems, as claimed by Trump, against modern ballistic missiles?Do you believe Netanyahu's initial plan was regime change in Iran, and if so, why did it fail?Is there confusion among global powers like Russia, China, and Iran about Trump’s erratic behavior and rhetoric?Andrei Martianov:The conflict shows that Israel relied heavily on U.S. support but failed to anticipate Iran’s military capabilities, leading to significant damage and no real ceasefire.Iran likely avoided using subsonic cruise missiles because they are easier to intercept and less effective compared to their advanced ballistic missiles.Patriot systems are obsolete and ineffective against modern ballistic missiles; Trump's claims are exaggerated and misleading.Netanyahu and Trump underestimated Iran, believing in quick victories and Western military superiority, which led to strategic failure.No, countries like Russia understand Trump well—they see him as impulsive, narcissistic, and unreliable, which undermines U.S. credibility globally. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the significance of Trump's involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict?Did the U.S. and Israel succeed in crippling Iran’s nuclear program?How credible are claims that Iran has been deterred from pursuing nuclear weapons?Is the ceasefire between Iran and Israel sustainable, or just a pause in hostilities?What are the implications of Trump’s actions on global diplomacy and regional stability?Ray McGovern:Trump’s involvement in the Iran-Israel conflict is driven by domestic politics and personal ambition, not strategic clarity. His unpredictability undermines long-term stability.The U.S. and Israel did not obliterate Iran’s nuclear facilities—intelligence assessments indicate limited damage. Highly enriched uranium was likely moved beforehand.Claims about deterring Iran from nuclear weapons ignore intelligence consensus: Iran isn’t pursuing a bomb, but Trump uses fear to justify aggression.The ceasefire is temporary—a respite for both sides to regroup and rearm. Escalation remains likely as neither side has achieved strategic dominance.Trump’s actions weaken international trust in U.S. leadership, embolden allies like Israel, and destabilize diplomatic efforts globally.John Helmer:Trump’s role in the Middle East reflects his transactional view of diplomacy—prioritizing short-term political wins over lasting peace.The attacks on Iran caused tactical damage but failed to achieve strategic goals. Iran retains significant retaliatory capability.Focusing on uranium enrichment misses the point—what matters is whether Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which it is not.Ceasefires serve as pauses in ongoing conflicts, allowing both sides to rearm and reassess strategy. This one is no different.Trump’s foreign policy lacks coherence, creating uncertainty for allies and adversaries alike, with serious consequences for global security. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What led to the decision by Israel and the U.S. to go to war with Iran?How did the AI system Mosaic influence the escalation between Iran and Israel?Why didn’t the initial Israeli attack on Iran lead to the expected collapse of the Iranian state?What role did the IAEA play in the events leading up to the conflict?What were the key outcomes of the 12-day war between Iran and Israel?Alastair Crooke:The decision was based on a long-term plan involving deception, including fake negotiations and using AI-generated intelligence to justify military action.Mosaic, an AI system used by the IAEA, falsely suggested Iran was accelerating its nuclear program, creating a pretext for the attack.Iran quickly restored its air defenses, replaced military leadership, and remained unified, countering the expectation of internal collapse.The IAEA provided misleading intelligence that supported Western narratives, which Iran and others viewed as a betrayal and manipulation.The war exposed Israel’s vulnerabilities, damaged its infrastructure, and failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, leading to a pause but not a lasting resolution. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What triggered the recent ceasefire between Iran and Israel after 12 days of conflict?How do you assess Iran’s decision to halt hostilities, especially in light of regional and international reactions?Can we expect a lasting ceasefire, or is this merely a temporary pause in ongoing tensions?What strategic advantages did Iran gain from its military actions against Israel and U.S. bases?How might these developments influence the broader regional balance of power and Arab states' positions?Leith Marouf:The ceasefire came after Iran inflicted significant damage on Israel and the U.S. realized it couldn’t defeat Iran without risking nuclear escalation.Iran’s decision was strategic—to avoid triggering a nuclear response while continuing to weaken Israel economically and psychologically over time.There is no formal ceasefire; hostilities have paused temporarily but will likely continue for at least another year.Iran demonstrated its military capability, damaged Israel’s infrastructure, and exposed U.S. vulnerability, forcing a shift in Western calculations.Arab regimes remain subservient to the West and Israel, but they may be pressured to distance themselves as Israel weakens and global opposition grows. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the current situation in the Middle East after Donald Trump's ceasefire announcement between Iran and Israel?Why did Israel attack Iran, and why did Netanyahu agree to stop the attacks?How has the Western media portrayed the conflict between Iran and Israel?What are the implications of this conflict on Iran's nuclear program and its relationship with the IAEA?How might this conflict reshape international relations, particularly with Russia, China, and Gulf Arab states?Amb. Chas Freeman:There is no formal ceasefire; instead, Iran offered a conditional halt to retaliation if Israel stopped attacking. Trump pressured Israel to accept it.Israel attacked Iran because it saw an opportunity to weaken Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence. Netanyahu agreed to stop due to mounting Israeli casualties and military strain.Western media has been pro-Israel, downplaying Israeli losses while exaggerating Iranian damage, distorting the true balance of harm.Iran’s nuclear program was not destroyed—it dispersed its enriched uranium and retains scientific knowledge. Iran may now reject IAEA inspections due to distrust.The war may push Iran closer to Russia and China for defense support. Gulf Arabs may align more with Iran against Israel, shifting regional alliances. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your analysis of the recent ceasefire between Israel and Iran?How do you assess the impact of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, particularly under Donald Trump?What are your thoughts on the role of misinformation and propaganda in shaping perceptions of Iran?How can international relations with Iran be improved, especially regarding nuclear agreements?What is your perspective on the internal dynamics within Iran, such as public sentiment and governance?Scott Ritter:The ceasefire seems fragile; both sides agreed due to mutual exhaustion rather than resolution of core issues.U.S. involvement has been costly without clear strategic gains, highlighting the need for a new approach.Misinformation fuels hostility; direct engagement with Iranians could counteract this bias effectively.A compromise is necessary, but zero-enrichment demands may no longer be feasible or practical.Despite challenges, the Iranian government has maintained resilience, though it faces criticism and calls for reform. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:Is there currently a ceasefire between Iran and Israel?Did the Israeli attack on Iran achieve its objective of regime change?How did the U.S. involvement impact the conflict?What effect has the war had on Iran's relationship with the West?What are the implications of this conflict for Israel and Netanyahu?Mohammad Marandi:There is a cessation of hostilities, but no formal agreement; Iran continues to hold the upper hand.The Israeli objective of regime change failed, as the Iranian government remains strong and unified.The U.S. strike on Iran was deceitful during negotiations, damaging Western credibility and strengthening Iran’s resolve.Mistrust toward the West has deepened, pushing Iran closer to the Global South and BRICS nations.Netanyahu has been weakened, and Israel’s image as invincible has been shattered, leading to internal instability. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima R. Alkhorshid:What is your take on the U.S. attack on Iran and its aftermath?How do you assess the Trump administration’s claims about destroying Iran's nuclear sites?What is your view on the Iranian response to the U.S. attack, particularly the strike on Qatar?Do you believe the U.S. can truly dismantle Iran’s nuclear program?How do you see the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel escalating or de-escalating?Paul C. Roberts:The U.S. attack likely caused no real damage; experts suggest Iran had already moved critical assets.The administration’s claims are exaggerated; there’s little independent evidence supporting their narrative.The Iranian retaliation seems symbolic, with no significant impact reported so far.Dismantling Iran’s nuclear knowledge is nearly impossible; it would require eliminating all expertise.Escalation depends on missile capabilities—Israel may soon face overwhelming pressure, drawing the U.S. into direct conflict. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the recent American attack on Iran’s nuclear sites?How do you view the relationship and communication between Iran, Russia, and China following the attacks?Do you think the U.S. and Israel are managing escalation effectively in their attacks on Iran?What is your take on the possibility of Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz?How do you see the impact of the ongoing conflict on Israeli society and its policymakers?Larry C. Johnson:The U.S. claims of destroying Iran's nuclear sites are exaggerated; overhead imagery shows minimal damage, and Iran likely had advanced warning.Iran may now seek Russian and Chinese help for air defense systems like S-400s, after previously refusing them, to counter Israeli and U.S. missile threats.Israel is struggling with missile defense and economic sustainability under Iranian strikes; attrition will build political pressure to end the war.Blocking Hormuz is unlikely due to Iran’s reliance on trade with Asian countries, though selective targeting of European-bound ships is possible.The war is causing growing suffering in Israel, which could lead to internal political shifts and potentially remove Netanyahu from power. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is your assessment of the recent U.S. attack on Iran and its strategic implications?How do you evaluate the role of international institutions like the IAEA in addressing such conflicts?Do you believe the West’s approach toward Iran undermines international law?How significant is the growing alignment between Iran, Russia, and China in response to Western pressure?What are the broader consequences of irrational decision-making in global politics?Col. Jacques Baud:The U.S. attack on Iran appears to be more symbolic than effective, lacking clear strategic objectives and likely driven by political pressures rather than military necessity.International institutions like the IAEA are being misused or sidelined, weakening their credibility and undermining the global nuclear monitoring system.Yes, the West’s selective enforcement of international law, especially regarding nuclear rights, reveals a systemic bias that erodes trust in the global order.The alignment between Iran, Russia, and China reflects a shared opposition to Western hegemony and could reshape geopolitical dynamics in the long term.Irrational decision-making, often based on ideology or misinformation, destabilizes governance, fuels conflict, and weakens accountability in international relations. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Mideast tensions rise amid U.S.-Iran moves, Russia ties, and BRICS media push.Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the current situation in the Middle East, and why is it becoming more dangerous?How do you interpret the U.S. military buildup near Iran and the possibility of an attack?What role is Russia playing regarding Iran, especially after Putin's statements in St. Petersburg?Can BRICS play a significant role in addressing global misinformation and creating alternative media platforms?How is the conflict between Iran and Israel affecting regional stability, and what are the global implications?Pepe Escobar:The Middle East is increasingly fragile due to rising tensions, U.S. military posturing, and Israeli aggression against Iran. The risk of escalation is high, with Washington using deception tactics to keep Tehran off balance.The U.S. is moving fighter jets and bombers close to Iran, signaling possible aggression. However, there’s also behind-the-scenes diplomacy, such as Putin securing assurances from Trump and Netanyahu not to attack the Bushehr nuclear plant.Russia is discreetly supporting Iran, particularly in its civilian nuclear program. Putin has publicly dismissed claims that Russia isn’t doing enough for Iran, labeling such narratives as provocations.BRICS is exploring ways to combat fake news by creating its own media ecosystem, including platforms like BRICSnet or BRICS Tube, to counter Western tech dominance and propaganda.The conflict is having a unifying effect inside Iran while exposing the desperation of U.S. foreign policy. Any attempt at regime change through military action would likely backfire, triggering broader regional instability and retaliation from Iran and its allies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Iran warns of severe retaliation if attacked, and targets Israeli and U.S. allies.Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What was the outcome of the meeting between the Iranian foreign minister and European countries?How would you describe the current interactions between Iran and Israel?Does Iran believe European countries can play a meaningful role in easing tensions with the U.S.?If the U.S. attacks Iran and Saudi Arabia supports the U.S., how would Iran respond?How do recent Israeli military actions and Western support impact the region?Mohammad Marandi:The talks were firm, with Iran emphasizing enrichment as a red line and rejecting external interference.Iran is using strategic, unpredictable strikes to deplete Israeli defenses and prepare for future actions.Europe isn’t seen as important; Iran focuses more on the broader international community for diplomatic support.Any complicit Gulf states would be targeted, and their alliances with the U.S. would not protect them.An attack on Iran would lead to severe regional and global consequences, including economic shocks and loss of U.S. influence. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

U.S. attack failed strategically, hurt credibility, and boosted Iran's global stance.Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the outcome of the American attack on Iran, and how credible are U.S. claims about damaging Iran’s nuclear program?Did Donald Trump achieve his intended goals with the attacks, or is this primarily a PR stunt?How has the United States' credibility been affected internationally by this attack, especially in the Global South?How do Russia and China view the U.S. attack on Iran, and what support might they provide to Iran?How should Iran strategically respond to the U.S. attack, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz and Israel?Pepe Escobar:The U.S. claims cannot be taken at face value; they likely did not damage underground facilities, and Iran's nuclear program can continue elsewhere.This was more of a domestic PR stunt than an actual strategic success for Trump, as it failed to deliver meaningful results.The U.S. has severely damaged its global credibility, especially among the Global South, where it is now seen as dishonest and destructive.Russia and China have condemned the attack and may offer diplomatic or even material support, including potential nuclear cooperation if needed.A selective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could be effective, but Iran seems focused on hitting Israel hard rather than directly attacking U.S. bases.Mohammad Marandi:The U.S. attack will not stop Iran’s nuclear program and has exposed Washington as untrustworthy, strengthening Iran’s position globally.Trump’s actions were not strategic successes and reflect desperation, not strength, undermining U.S. influence further.Internationally, the U.S. is increasingly viewed as a rogue state, which weakens alliances and damages Western-dominated institutions.Russia and China have made clear their support for Iran’s civilian nuclear program, and they may increase assistance if tensions escalate.Iran should focus on economic warfare against Israel and selectively target Western interests without fully closing the Strait of Hormuz for now. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

US-Israel stance fuels Iran tensions, blocks diplomacy, risks war.Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:How has the shift in U.S. policy under Trump, influenced by Israel, impacted negotiations with Iran?What is the current sentiment inside Iran following the Israeli attacks, and is there any sign of internal dissent or uprising?How effective has Western-backed Israel been in achieving its objectives, and what are the implications for regional stability?Trita Parsi:Trump initially pursued diplomacy with Iran but shifted to align with Israel’s demands for zero enrichment, derailing negotiations and leading to conflict.There is no significant internal uprising in Iran; instead, there is a strong rallying around the flag, especially against foreign aggression.The mainstream media is promoting a false narrative that Israel is winning, which supports warmongering policies and undermines diplomatic efforts.Ambassador Chas Freeman:Israel seeks not just nuclear disarmament but the complete subjugation of Iran to ensure regional dominance.Both Iran and Israel face credibility issues, but Israel's actions—backed by the U.S.—are the primary source of regional instability.A potential solution lies in a shared regional enrichment program, but meaningful talks can only happen once hostilities begin to wind down.Colonel Wilkerson:The real threat to global stability is the U.S.-Israel alliance, driven by a group of elites aiming to counter China and Russia.Iran is effectively resisting Israel, causing significant strain on Israeli military resources and morale.Escalating this conflict could lead to broader regional or even global war, especially if the U.S. directly intervenes militarily. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Israel under Trump's leadership, amid rising regional tensions.Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:How do you interpret the recent Israeli attack on Iran and its implications?What role did intelligence collaboration play in the attack?How does this attack compare to previous escalations, like the Russia-Ukraine conflict?How might Russia and China respond if the U.S. escalates the conflict?What are your thoughts on Trump’s potential involvement in the war?Graham E. Fuller:The attack reflects a dangerous shift toward assassination-based foreign policy and regime change goals by Israel.Intelligence suggests long-term collaboration with inside actors in Iran over more than a decade to prepare for the strike.Unlike Ukraine, this attack combines multiple regional tensions, including Lebanon and Russia, raising broader escalation risks.Both Russia and China want to avoid direct involvement; however, they may push for diplomatic solutions to prevent nuclear proliferation.Trump is unpredictable, but pressure from pro-Israel advisors likely influenced his stance, though he may avoid full escalation depending on how events unfold. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

China backs Iran; Israel struggles; U.S. attack risks global conflict.Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What is the significance of the Chinese ships entering the Persian Gulf?How does Iran's military capability compare to Israel's in the current conflict?What role do China and Russia play in supporting Iran amid rising tensions?Is there a possibility of the U.S. launching a direct attack on Iran, and what could be the consequences?How effective are Israel’s air defense systems against Iranian missile strikes?Larry C. Johnson:The presence of Chinese surveillance ships in the Persian Gulf likely aims to gather intelligence on Israeli and U.S. military activities, signaling China’s strategic interest in protecting its regional allies.Iran has a larger and more diverse missile arsenal, while Israel struggles with limited defensive capabilities and resupply issues, making it increasingly vulnerable.China and Russia support Iran economically and militarily, helping it resist Western pressure and reinforcing alternative global trade routes outside U.S. influence.A U.S. attack on Iran could escalate into a broader regional or even global conflict, especially if Russia and China intervene, and may face strong domestic and international opposition.Israeli air defenses are overwhelmed by the volume and accuracy of Iranian missiles, often requiring multiple interceptors per target, leading to rapid depletion of supplies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Israel-Iran clash failed to topple regime; unity rose, diplomacy still key.Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:What are the implications of recent attacks between Iran and Israel, and how do they compare to previous conflicts?How does the strategy used in Iran compare to what was seen in Russia at the start of the special military operation?Is regime change in Iran a realistic goal for Israel and the U.S., given the current circumstances?Can the U.S. achieve its objectives regarding Iran’s nuclear program through military action or negotiations?How might the conflict influence the geopolitical strategies of Russia and China?Dimitri Orlov:The Israeli attack on Iran failed to destabilize the regime, with Iran quickly retaliating and demonstrating resilience, unlike expectations of regime collapse.Similar to Russia in 2022, sleeper cells and foreign agents were exposed in Iran, leading to purges and strengthening internal unity against external threats.Regime change is unlikely; the attack strengthened Iranian patriotism and cohesion rather than causing internal division.Military action won't stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Negotiations are undermined by U.S. credibility issues, especially after Trump's actions.Russia and China prioritize stability in Iran due to economic and strategic interests, and they will support Iran to prevent Western dominance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.