Over the past week, the world appeared to be edging towards another dangerous military escalation in the Persian Gulf, with both Washington and Tehran issuing fresh threats.

But this weekend Donald Trump abruptly called off the planned attack on Iran. The President says diplomacy has made further military action unnecessary. But are Washington and Tehran genuinely prepared to reach a meaningful peace agreement? Or is this merely a temporary pause before the next crisis?

And what has the conflict done to American credibility, prestige and influence around the world?

John Mearsheimer is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and author, most recently, of How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy.

Paul Kelly is Editor-at-Large of The Australian and author, most recently, of The Twilight of Exceptionalism: The Liberal and Conservative Era.

John Mearsheimer is professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001).

The war against Iran, launched by President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu on February 28, was meant to last four to six weeks. It is now in its twenty-second week.

Peter Oborne has spent more than two decades arguing against Western military intervention in the Middle East -- he was one of the very few British conservative columnists to oppose the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He argues that this war is illegal under international law, that it was launched without serious deliberation, and that it is accelerating a geopolitical shift already well underway: the rise of China and the unravelling of American authority.

He also takes the case for the war head on. Was Iran ever close to a nuclear weapon, or did the 2015 agreement hold until Washington walked away from it? Are Western objections to Tehran's human rights record consistent with its silence on Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE? And what does it say that three days before he launched the war, President Trump delivered a two-hour State of the Union address and devoted just thirty seconds to Iran?

In the second half, Tom and Peter turn to cricket. Full Circle argues that the game began in the eighteenth century as a commercial entertainment run by brewers, bookmakers and gambling aristocrats; was reinvented by the Victorians as a system of ethics fit to run an empire; and has now returned to where it started, dominated by private equity and franchise money. Along the way: the first overseas match, played in Aleppo in 1676; racism as cricket's original sin, decades before apartheid; how Afghan refugees learned the game in Pakistan and carried it home; and whether India's dominance of world cricket is something to celebrate or something to watch closely.

Peter Oborne is Associate Editor of Middle East Eye and a former chief political commentator of The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of Complicit: Britain's Role in the Destruction of Gaza and, most recently, Full Circle: A History of Cricket, co-written with Richard Heller.

Join Tom's Exclusive Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/cff5e11f69a3/switzerland-with-tom-switzer

Read Tom's Substack: https://substack.com/@tomswitzer

Tom Switzer is a journalist and broadcaster who has been a prolific commentator on politics and international affairs. His writing and commentary have appeared in outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times (international), The Australian, and across ABC and Sky News, where he has been a regular presenter and panellist. For 30 years, since 1995, he has worked at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, the Australian Financial Review, The Australian, the London-based Spectator magazine, and the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, which he headed from 2017 to 2025. He is the host of Switzerland, a long-form interview series exploring global politics, modern history, and the ideas shaping the world.

Last weekend, thousands of young Indians took to the streets in support of the Cockroach Junta Party, or CJP -- a satirical movement that became a serious vehicle for growing frustration with India’s education system. After weeks of demonstrations, the Modi government relented, culminating in the resignation of India’s Education Minister.

The political drama comes at a time when India’s democratic credentials are under increasing international scrutiny. Global democracy rankings have downgraded the world’s largest democracy, while critics accuse Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP government of eroding liberal institutions.

How significant is this moment? Is Modi facing his most serious political challenge in more than a decade in office? Are these protests part of a broader generational revolt sweeping South Asia -- like the student uprising in Bangladesh in 2024 that brought down Sheikh Hasina’s government, or the Gen Z demonstrations in Nepal in 2025 that forced the resignation of that country’s prime minister? Or is India fundamentally different?

Salvatore Babones is associate professor of Sociology at the University of Sydney and author of Dharma Democracy: How India Built the Third World’s First Democracy.

Join Tom's Exclusive Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/cff5e11f69a3/switzerland-with-tom-switzer

Read Tom's Substack: https://substack.com/@tomswitzer

Tom Switzer is a journalist and broadcaster who has been a prolific commentator on politics and international affairs. His writing and commentary have appeared in outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times (international), The Australian, and across ABC and Sky News, where he has been a regular presenter and panellist. For 30 years, since 1995, he has worked at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, the Australian Financial Review, The Australian, the London-based Spectator magazine, and the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, which he headed from 2017 to 2025. He is the host of Switzerland, a long-form interview series exploring global politics, modern history, and the ideas shaping the world.

Follow Trita here: https://tritaparsi.substack.com/

This week marks 150 days since US and Israeli air strikes hit Iran. Back then, President Donald Trump predicted the campaign would be over within four to six weeks. The Iranian regime would be humbled, perhaps even overthrown. Its missile and drone capabilities would be shattered. Its nuclear ambitions would be set back for at least a generation. And its regional proxy network -- from Hamas and Hezbollah to the Houthis -- would be gravely weakened.

Five months on, the picture looks very different. Tehran has proved far more resilient than many expected. US stockpiles of precision munitions have been depleted. The global economy is under strain. Petrol prices have climbed, America’s Gulf allies are increasingly anxious, and President Trump’s approval ratings have fallen sharply.

What now? Washington lacks the appetite to commit the blood and treasure required for a decisive military victory. Yet it cannot simply disengage without risking a major strategic setback. Is there a realistic pathway to ending this war? Why has Trump appeared to halt his recent military escalation which helped end the ceasefire a fortnight ago?

Trita Parsi is co-founder and Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and author of A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran.

Fighting between the United States and Iran has entered a dangerous new phase. Over the past week, the U.S. military has expanded its campaign, striking a broader range of targets deep inside Iran, including bridges and other critical infrastructure, in an apparent effort to increase pressure on Tehran and force an end to attacks on commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf. Iran has responded with fresh missile and drone attacks across the Gulf, killing and wounding U.S. service personnel and raising fears of a wider regional conflict.

Where does this leave the crisis? Are we witnessing another temporary escalation -- or the beginning of a much larger war?

John Mearsheimer is professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001). 

Join Tom's Exclusive Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/cff5e11f69a3/switzerland-with-tom-switzer

Read Tom's Substack: https://substack.com/@tomswitzer

Tom Switzer is a journalist and broadcaster who has been a prolific commentator on politics and international affairs. His writing and commentary have appeared in outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times (international), The Australian, and across ABC and Sky News, where he has been a regular presenter and panellist. For 30 years, since 1995, he has worked at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, the Australian Financial Review, The Australian, the London-based Spectator magazine, and the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, which he headed from 2017 to 2025. He is the host of Switzerland, a long-form interview series exploring global politics, modern history, and the ideas shaping the world.

The renewed cycle of U.S. and Iranian air strikes has replaced the earlier phases of the confrontation, which began with the U.S. bombing campaign from late February to early April and was followed by the U.S. naval blockade from mid-April to mid-June.

The central question now is whether the Trump administration can compel Tehran to allow commercial shipping to pass through the Strait of Hormuz without requiring the Iranian regime’s permission.

Iran has categorically rejected that proposition, insisting that all vessels transiting the Strait must do so with Tehran’s explicit approval. Is there any realistic prospect that Iran will back down? Or does Washington have a credible military strategy capable of changing the Islamic Republic’s position?

Guests are Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard University, and Joshua Landis, Professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma.

The past week has shattered whatever faith remained in that Memorandum of Understanding. The United States and Iran have once again exchanged strikes, with the U.S. military saying it hit 90 military targets, though Tehran claims many of those sites were civilian. The Iranian military, meanwhile, says it has retaliated by targeting U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Jordan. What’s now likely to happen? Has the renewed fighting vindicated Professor Robert Pape’s escalation trap? 

On Ukraine, Professor Pape contends that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s campaign has become a strategic failure and that Ukraine is gaining the upper hand, including in Crimea. We put to Professor Pape the counterarguments advanced by Professors John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, both of whom argue that Russia retains the strategic advantage and is likely to prevail in a prolonged ground war of attrition.

Robert Pape is Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and author of the Substack The Escalation Trap. His forthcoming book is Our Own Worst Enemies: America and the Age of Violent Populism.

Join Tom's Exclusive Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/cff5e11f69a3/switzerland-with-tom-switzer

Read Tom's Substack: https://substack.com/@tomswitzer

Tom Switzer is a journalist and broadcaster who has been a prolific commentator on politics and international affairs. His writing and commentary have appeared in outlets including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times (international), The Australian, and across ABC and Sky News, where he has been a regular presenter and panellist. For 30 years, since 1995, he has worked at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, the Australian Financial Review, The Australian, the London-based Spectator magazine, and the Sydney-based Centre for Independent Studies, which he headed from 2017 to 2025. He is the host of Switzerland, a long-form interview series exploring global politics, modern history, and the ideas shaping the world.

No one expected diplomacy to proceed without setbacks. But there was hope that the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the United States and Iran in late June, vague though it was, would create enough political space to allow commercial shipping to resume through the Strait of Hormuz. The events of the past few days have been a reminder of just how fragile that ceasefire remains.

What kind of challenge does this pose to efforts to turn that initial memorandum into a more durable peace agreement? To what extent has the U.S. foreign policy establishment been, to coin a neoconservative phrase, mugged by reality? Will the Iran debacle encourage Washington policy elites to place less emphasis on not just the Persian Gulf but also Europe and Asia?  

Whether the memorandum of understanding ultimately survives political opposition in Tehran, Washington and Jerusalem remains to be seen. What is clear is that the latest tensions over the Strait of Hormuz is a reminder of how fragile the situation remains in the Persian Gulf and how uncertain the prospects are for a durable peace.

Will Donald Trump follow through on his threats that the United States could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz? Could recent White House criticism of the Jewish state mark the contours of an effort to de-specialise the US-Israel relationship? Such a stance no doubt causes panic in much of Washington, but will it resonate with Middle America, especially among younger demographics?   

Today’s guests are John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago and Trita Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

President Trump’s memorandum of understanding with Iran has been hailed by supporters as a diplomatic breakthrough and denounced by critics as a strategic retreat. But what does the agreement actually achieve, and who, if anyone, emerges stronger from months of conflict?