Dialogue Works

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is the outcome of the American attack on Iran, and how credible are U.S. claims about damaging Iran’s nuclear program?
2. Did Donald Trump achieve his intended goals with the attacks, or is this primarily a PR stunt?
3. How has the United States' credibility been affected internationally by this attack, especially in the Global South?
4. How do Russia and China view the U.S. attack on Iran, and what support might they provide to Iran?
5. How should Iran strategically respond to the U.S. attack, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz and Israel?

Pepe Escobar:

1. 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.
2. This was more of a domestic PR stunt than an actual strategic success for Trump, as it failed to deliver meaningful results.
3. The U.S. has severely damaged its global credibility, especially among the Global South, where it is now seen as dishonest and destructive.
4. Russia and China have condemned the attack and may offer diplomatic or even material support, including potential nuclear cooperation if needed.
5. 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:

1. The U.S. attack will not stop Iran’s nuclear program and has exposed Washington as untrustworthy, strengthening Iran’s position globally.
2. Trump’s actions were not strategic successes and reflect desperation, not strength, undermining U.S. influence further.
3. Internationally, the U.S. is increasingly viewed as a rogue state, which weakens alliances and damages Western-dominated institutions.
4. Russia and China have made clear their support for Iran’s civilian nuclear program, and they may increase assistance if tensions escalate.
5. 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.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. How has the shift in U.S. policy under Trump, influenced by Israel, impacted negotiations with Iran?
2. What is the current sentiment inside Iran following the Israeli attacks, and is there any sign of internal dissent or uprising?
3. How effective has Western-backed Israel been in achieving its objectives, and what are the implications for regional stability?

Trita Parsi:

1. Trump initially pursued diplomacy with Iran but shifted to align with Israel’s demands for zero enrichment, derailing negotiations and leading to conflict.
2. There is no significant internal uprising in Iran; instead, there is a strong rallying around the flag, especially against foreign aggression.
3. The mainstream media is promoting a false narrative that Israel is winning, which supports warmongering policies and undermines diplomatic efforts.

Ambassador Chas Freeman:

1. Israel seeks not just nuclear disarmament but the complete subjugation of Iran to ensure regional dominance.
2. Both Iran and Israel face credibility issues, but Israel's actions—backed by the U.S.—are the primary source of regional instability.
3. A potential solution lies in a shared regional enrichment program, but meaningful talks can only happen once hostilities begin to wind down.

Colonel Wilkerson:

1. The real threat to global stability is the U.S.-Israel alliance, driven by a group of elites aiming to counter China and Russia.
2. Iran is effectively resisting Israel, causing significant strain on Israeli military resources and morale.
3. 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.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. How do you interpret the recent Israeli attack on Iran and its implications?
2. What role did intelligence collaboration play in the attack?
3. How does this attack compare to previous escalations, like the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
4. How might Russia and China respond if the U.S. escalates the conflict?
5. What are your thoughts on Trump’s potential involvement in the war?

Graham E. Fuller:

1. The attack reflects a dangerous shift toward assassination-based foreign policy and regime change goals by Israel.
2. Intelligence suggests long-term collaboration with inside actors in Iran over more than a decade to prepare for the strike.
3. Unlike Ukraine, this attack combines multiple regional tensions, including Lebanon and Russia, raising broader escalation risks.
4. Both Russia and China want to avoid direct involvement; however, they may push for diplomatic solutions to prevent nuclear proliferation.
5. 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.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is the significance of the Chinese ships entering the Persian Gulf?
2. How does Iran's military capability compare to Israel's in the current conflict?
3. What role do China and Russia play in supporting Iran amid rising tensions?
4. Is there a possibility of the U.S. launching a direct attack on Iran, and what could be the consequences?
5. How effective are Israel’s air defense systems against Iranian missile strikes?

Larry C. Johnson:

1. 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.
2. Iran has a larger and more diverse missile arsenal, while Israel struggles with limited defensive capabilities and resupply issues, making it increasingly vulnerable.
3. China and Russia support Iran economically and militarily, helping it resist Western pressure and reinforcing alternative global trade routes outside U.S. influence.
4. 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.
5. 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.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What are the implications of recent attacks between Iran and Israel, and how do they compare to previous conflicts?
2. How does the strategy used in Iran compare to what was seen in Russia at the start of the special military operation?
3. Is regime change in Iran a realistic goal for Israel and the U.S., given the current circumstances?
4. Can the U.S. achieve its objectives regarding Iran’s nuclear program through military action or negotiations?
5. How might the conflict influence the geopolitical strategies of Russia and China?

Dimitri Orlov:

1. The Israeli attack on Iran failed to destabilize the regime, with Iran quickly retaliating and demonstrating resilience, unlike expectations of regime collapse.
2. Similar to Russia in 2022, sleeper cells and foreign agents were exposed in Iran, leading to purges and strengthening internal unity against external threats.
3. Regime change is unlikely; the attack strengthened Iranian patriotism and cohesion rather than causing internal division.
4. Military action won't stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Negotiations are undermined by U.S. credibility issues, especially after Trump's actions.
5. 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.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. How does the current situation with Iran compare to past conflicts like Iraq?
2. What is your take on Trump's ambiguous stance regarding potential military action against Iran?
3. Do you see parallels between the propaganda before the Iraq War and the rhetoric around Iran today?
4. What are the main issues in the talks between Iran and the U.S.?
5. Do you think the primary goal of the U.S. and Israel is regime change in Iran or targeting its nuclear program?

Norman Solomon:

1. We’re witnessing a demagogic approach from Trump, treating global affairs as his plaything, backed by the U.S. military-industrial complex.
2. There are chilling parallels to the Iraq War—manufactured threats, fearmongering, and dangerous rhetoric about preemptive strikes.
3. The U.S. demands unrealistic terms like no enrichment, ignoring peaceful civilian uses of nuclear technology in Iran.
4. Regime change is definitely on the agenda for some, particularly Netanyahu, though it’s irrational and could lead to catastrophic outcomes.
5. Using nuclear weapons, even tactical ones, would be suicidal and heighten global risks to human survival.

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

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is the broader historical context of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, particularly with Iran and Israel?
2. Why does the U.S. continue to support Israel despite global criticism?
3. How do U.S.-Iran tensions relate to the broader geopolitical struggle over de-dollarization and colonialism?
4. Is a potential U.S. attack on Iran driven by Israeli interests or larger U.S. strategic goals?
5. What are the implications of escalating tensions between the U.S., Iran, and its allies like Russia and China?

Richard Wolff:

1. The U.S. involvement in the Middle East is part of the end of centuries-long colonialism, where former colonies are asserting independence, and the West is trying to resist this shift.
2. Israel survives only because of U.S. backing; without it, it could not withstand regional opposition. It serves as a proxy for U.S. control of oil and regional influence.
3. Tensions with Iran are tied to U.S. efforts to halt China’s Belt and Road Initiative and maintain financial dominance by blocking alternative economic alliances.
4. Israel is a junior partner; the U.S. is pulling the strings. The conflict serves American imperial strategy more than Israeli national interest.
5. Escalation will likely fail, as history shows that empires cannot stop the march of decolonization and multipolarity.

Michael Hudson:

1. U.S. policy in the Middle East is about maintaining control over oil and preventing countries from escaping the dollar-based financial system.
2. The U.S. has long sought to divide Iran ethnically to weaken it, similar to strategies used against Russia and China.
3. Iran is key to U.S. plans to block China’s Silk Road and Russia’s access to southern trade routes, making it central to global power struggles.
4. While Israel may believe it acts independently, it is ultimately controlled by U.S. interests and used to distract attention from American imperialism.
5. A war with Iran would be economically self-defeating for the U.S., accelerating global de-dollarization and increasing inflation worldwide.

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

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is your view on the recent Israeli attack on Iran and its implications?
2. How do you assess the role of Western intelligence agencies in supporting Israel’s actions?
3. What are the potential consequences if the U.S. directly intervenes in the conflict between Iran and Israel?
4. Do you believe there is a possibility for diplomatic resolution between Iran and the West?
5. How does the current geopolitical tension impact regional stability, especially in the Middle East?

Alex Krainer:

1. The Israeli attack on Iran was partially successful but strategically risky, given Israel's limited resources and the strong response from Iran.
2. Western intelligence agencies, including the CIA and MI6, have played a major role in enabling Israel’s operations through extensive support and intelligence sharing.
3. If the U.S. intervenes, it could lead to a broader regional war, significantly destabilizing the Middle East and damaging Western interests globally.
4. There is potential for diplomacy, especially if negotiations continue behind the scenes, but the aggressive stance of pro-Israel factions complicates peaceful outcomes.
5. The tensions are already causing instability, with possible regime changes in allied states, increased resistance movements, and economic disruptions like oil price surges.

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

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. Do you believe Donald Trump is being influenced by pro-Israel figures in his administration?
2. Could Trump’s actions lead to a broader conflict with Iran and potentially World War III?
3. Is Netanyahu gaining any real strategic advantage from attacking Iran?
4. How significant is the role of international institutions like IAEA being undermined in this conflict?
5. Can Trump still change course, or is he set on escalating tensions with Iran?

David Pyne:

1. Yes, Trump is heavily influenced by neoconservatives and pro-Israel figures like Rubio, Waltz, and Ratcliffe.
2. Yes, Trump’s escalation could provoke Iran, Russia, and China, risking a global conflict.
3. Netanyahu may gain short-term victories, but long-term consequences will likely be devastating for Israel.
4. The erosion of institutions like the IAEA undermines global diplomacy and trust in international frameworks.
5. Trump can still pivot, but only if pressured by allies and supporters who oppose war with Iran.

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

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is your assessment of the recent attack between Iran and Israel, and how does it relate to the upcoming negotiations between the U.S. and Iran?
2. How do you view the effectiveness of Israel’s military actions against Iran, particularly in targeting its nuclear program?
3. Can you compare the similarities between the attacks on Russia and Iran, especially regarding the use of drones and timing before negotiations?
4. What are your thoughts on the role of international organizations like the IAEA in addressing concerns about Iran's nuclear program?
5. How do you perceive the involvement of the Trump administration in Middle Eastern affairs, particularly with regard to Iran and Israel?

Andrei Martianov:

1. The recent Israeli attack on Iran was well-prepared by Mossad and other Western intelligence agencies but ultimately failed to cripple Iran's capabilities or morale. It was likely timed to pressure Iran before negotiations.
2. Israel and the U.S. are not capable of completely destroying Iran's nuclear program through airstrikes. Their air defense systems are outdated and ineffective against modern missile technology.
3. Both attacks on Russia and Iran show a similar pattern—covert operations, drone strikes, and confusion. These tactics reflect a one-trick-pony approach by Western intelligence agencies like the CIA, MI6, and Mossad.
4. The IAEA has been compromised and operates more as an extension of Western interests rather than as an impartial organization. Its leadership lacks technical expertise, undermining its credibility.
5. The Trump administration is chaotic, influenced heavily by pro-Israeli and Christian Zionist advisors. Trump himself is seen as erratic and unfit for serious diplomacy, surrounding himself with questionable figures who serve foreign interests over American ones.

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