Dialogue Works

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. What is the significance of the peace negotiations in Istanbul, and what are Russia’s true objectives in these talks?
4. Why does Europe seem more engaged and connected with Ukraine compared to the United States, which appears less involved under Trump?
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. What is the main goal of the Russians in the upcoming third round of negotiations in Istanbul?
2. Do you think Ukraine will have a presidential election soon, and could that facilitate negotiations?
3. Is General Zaluzhny a viable candidate to replace Zelensky, and would he be more open to negotiation?
4. How do the Russians view the issue of "denazification" in Ukraine, and can it be achieved without removing the current leadership?
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. 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.?
2. Do you believe the main objective behind Israeli and U.S. actions toward Iran is regime change?
3. Given Israel’s struggles in defending against Houthi attacks, how credible is their threat or plan to launch a major offensive against Iran?
4. Why is the UK, despite strong verbal condemnation, not taking significant action to pressure Israel over Gaza?
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. There are reports Poland is asking its citizens to leave Russia—could this signal a coming internal collapse in Ukraine or broader regional instability?
4. 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?
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. What is the main objective behind Iran’s approach to negotiations with the United States?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. Given the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, do you see growing international pressure that could force a change in policy?
5. What is really happening in Syria, and who truly represents the diverse ethnic and religious groups within the country?

Mohammad Marandi:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. Are there any recent U.S. presidents besides George H.W. Bush and Reagan who have shown willingness to challenge Israel’s demands?
4. How sustainable is Israel’s current aggressive posture in the Middle East, especially with attacks on Eilat and Ben-Gurion Airport disrupting its economy?
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. Given past military cooperation since 2018, what strategic message does the upcoming CASIEX 2025 exercise in the Caspian Sea send to the West?
4. Can the Trump administration realistically broker a grand security deal involving Ukraine and the Middle East, given current power dynamics?
5. 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:

1. Are Indian policymakers aware of the risks of not acting in their own interests within BRICS?
2. Could BRICS members see closer military collaboration beyond current agreements?
3. How should Iran approach its foreign policy after recent attacks by the U.S. and Israel?
4. What impact will the Zangezur Corridor have on Iran and Russia’s regional strategies?
5. Is the current Iranian administration capable of effective strategic decision-making?

Pepe Escobar:

1. India’s internal contradictions and hesitations may cost them influence in BRICS if they don’t act decisively.
2. Military collaboration could expand, especially if geopolitical pressure increases, though it’s not yet formalized.
3. Iran is strengthening defense ties with China and Russia, acquiring advanced jets and preparing for long-term deterrence.
4. If the corridor isolates Iran, both Iran and Russia may act together, but this risks escalation with Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Israel.
5. 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:

1. What is happening between the Houthis and Israel?
2. Why are the Yemenis so difficult to deal with militarily?
3. How is the situation in Syria being interpreted differently by the US and Israel?
4. Why is Turkey unable to communicate its difficulties in Syria with the US?
5. What are the implications of the recent military pact between the UK and Germany?

Amb. Chas Freeman:

1. The Houthis have shut down the port of Eilat and occasionally attack Ben-Gurion Airport, taking concrete actions under the Genocide Convention.
2. The Yemenis are resilient and adept at differentiating between commercial ships, causing significant damage and economic impact.
3. The US and Israel have different interpretations of the Syrian situation, with Israel occupying territory and Turkey upset by Israeli actions.
4. Turkey's leverage with the US is limited, especially under the current administration, leading to uncertainty and fear internationally.
5. The UK-Germany pact reflects historic tensions and could lead to an escalation similar to pre-WWI alliances.

Col. Larry Wilkerson:

1. The Houthis have taken actions against Israeli ports, impacting economic stability, and are considered indomitable.
2. Yemenis are resilient and have a history of courteous banditry, making them tough adversaries despite limited military power.
3. The situation in Syria involves Israeli occupation and internal disputes, with the Syrian army attempting to mediate.
4. The US's unpredictable foreign policy and military behavior cause concern among international leaders.
5. 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:

1. What is your perspective on Yemen's capability to impact Israeli ports?
2. How do you assess the potential for international sanctions on Israel?
3. What role do you see Iran playing in regional air defense strategies?
4. How do you interpret the dynamics between the Druze community and Israeli military integration?
5. What are your thoughts on the impact of Western military support for Ukraine?

Larry C. Johnson:

1. Yemen’s actions reflect resilience and determination despite challenges.
2. Sanctions could gain traction but depend on global political alignment.
3. Iran’s air defense priorities focus on comprehensive threat interception.
4. The Druze community’s stance is evolving, with some identifying more as Palestinian.
5. 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.