US unlikely to strike Iran; nuclear threat overstated; diplomacy limits prevail.

Nima Rostami Alkhorshid:

1. What is the likelihood of the U.S. launching a direct strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?
2. How credible are reports that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?
3. Can Russia effectively mediate between Israel and Iran to de-escalate tensions?
4. Is the Trump administration likely to prioritize regional stability over regime change in Iran?
5. How significant is China’s role in countering U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf?

John Helmer:

1. The U.S. is unlikely to launch a direct strike due to risks of escalation and lack of international support.
2. Reports about Iran developing nukes are largely unfounded; intelligence confirms no active weapon program since 2003.
3. Russia could mediate, but its public stance avoids direct confrontation with the U.S., limiting effectiveness.
4. Trump appears more focused on projecting strength than long-term stability, increasing unpredictability.
5. China’s role is strategic but limited by reluctance to deploy military force in the region.

Ray McGovern:

1. Direct strikes remain possible under Trump, but internal and global pushback makes it unlikely.
2. Claims about Iran’s nuclear ambitions are often exaggerated or politicized to justify aggression.
3. Russia has mediation potential but must balance ties with both sides without triggering conflict.
4. Regime change remains a covert priority despite short-term rhetoric favoring diplomacy.
5. China prefers economic leverage over military action, making its role supportive but not decisive in the Gulf.

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