The Duran Podcast - Iran-US row; All military options bad for Trump. Diplomacy best option

Episode Date: February 25, 2026

Iran-US row; All military options bad for Trump. Diplomacy best option

All right, Alexander, let's talk about the possible conflict with Iran. And we can talk about Trump's post on Truth Social talking about General Kane. Trump claims that they're reporting that General Kane, the military, the Trump administration, is having doubts about the effectiveness of a strike on Iran. Trump says that he prefers diplomacy. General Kane prefers diplomacy, but he believes that, well, he said in the truth social post, that Kane believes if the U.S. were to go to war with Iran, it would be an easy war, but it would be a war nonetheless, and that Kane is ready to go to war with Iran. The U.S. military is ready to go to war with Iran.

So that's where we are. Reports claim that Trump does not like the options presented to him. him. Trump is saying those reports are fake news. The military is ready. General Kane is ready, but he prefers diplomacy over conflict. But he also said in the post, if there's no deal, if we can't get a deal, then we're going to go to war. We also have reports about a limited strike option as well. So get it to this, Alexander. Well, this is a very interesting situation. And it demonstrates, it emphasizes a point that we've made already. in several programs, which is that Trump has maneuvered himself, has been, has put himself

in a very, very difficult position. At this particular time, there is no crisis between the United States and Iran. Iran is not attacking any country. It is not attacking Israel. It is not attacking the United States. Trump himself said, you know, a few months ago that the attacks on Iran in June had obliterated Iran's nuclear enrichment program. Iran does have long-range ballistic missiles. But it's had long-range ballistic missiles for a very, very long time. There were protests in Iran in January, which was suppressed.

but again, this isn't anything new. And in spite of the fact that this was a situation which was never easy and always difficult, but was relatively stable, he nonetheless decided after talking to Netanyahu and listening to people like, well, all the usual hardliners in Washington, that the moment had come to do something again about Iran. Now, we've predicted this. We said after the June war back in last year that the June war had not achieved its objective. It had not achieved regime change in Iran that sooner or later another big attack would come. There would be another big effort to achieve regime change.

And in fact, we saw that in January with the protests, which the Americans have themselves now told us. They played a part in instigating. Besant has said that it was the Americans who crashed the Real, the Iranian currency, and the Wall Street Journal tells us that it was the Americans who smuggled all those Starlink terminals into Iran. So they made another attempt to achieve regime change in Iran in January, and a regime change has not been achieved. And despite the situation being stable, Trump, who still seems to be,

determined to achieve ultimately regime change in Iran has now assembled this enormous fleet and he's been pushed into doing it or he's been, shall we say, encouraged to do it by all of these hardliners in Israel and in Washington. Except what he's now discovering is that achieving regime change in Iran is not as straightforward as he'd assumed as all of those people who talk to him have been telling him. So on Sunday, we had a meeting with the top military and intelligence people. General Kane, who's the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and John Radcliffe, who is the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Radcliffe, as we know, is a hardliner. So neither of these two people,

people can be considered, you know, soft, maga types who don't want intervention in, who, you know, who are averse to intervention. And they both told Trump, look, Mr. President, we've looked over all of this. We can attack Iran, but we face major problems. Our arsenals are very heavily depleted. We are very short of air defense missiles. We are very short of many other types of missiles as well. Of course, no one in the media links it to the unending stream of weapons that have been sent to Ukraine over the past four years. But that's something that's left for people like us to do. But anyway, that is the situation. There's a report today in the financial times, it says that Israel, the Israelis have assessed, Israeli intelligence has assessed,

that a military operation, an intense bombing and missile campaign against Iran can only continue for five days, or if you stretch it out for perhaps a week. And what Kane and Radcliffe are telling Trump is that's not going to be enough. That's not going to provoke regime change in Iran. It is likely or possible that Iran will retain a large part of its ballistic missile arsenal. It's likely that the Iranians will be able to hit back. If they do hit back, the US lacks air defense missile interceptors to repel those attacks. and the United States could find itself in a long attrition war with Iran, which is, of course,

what the Iranians are threatening. Trump didn't apparently like that information at all. He's obviously promised he's donors, Netanyahu, the various other people that he talks to, who have been encouraging him to take this action against. Iran, that action will be taken now and that regime change against Iran will be achieved. And we see clearly the signs of stress. We see more signs of stress, in fact, over the last couple of days. We had Witkoff saying that Trump is frustrated about the fact that the Iranians have not capitulated.

He doesn't understand why they haven't capitulated. And we have this very strange, well, not very strange, maybe not strange at all coming from Trump, this true social post in which he's trying to deny what General Kane clearly did tell him. I'm sure that General Kane did give this advice because every media outlet in Washington that matters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Axios, are all reporting the same thing. Well, of course he gave him that advice, yeah. Exactly. Absolutely.

Trump is wanting some sort of Venezuela outcome or some sort of quick decapitation strike. He wants the military to tell him, we're going to launch missiles, bombs here, there, and there. That's going to take out the Ayatollah. That'll take out the president and we'll take out all of the top government officials. And you will have your regime change. There will be a vacuum and then we'll fill that vacuum. And no U.S. military will be, we will not suffer any casualties. We won't have to put boots on the ground.

And then you can give speeches, Mr. President, about what a great operation you commanded. Right? That's what he wants. Exactly. But that's not what he's going to get. At least that's not how it looks. And I'm sure they've explored all their options to try and use some deception or trickery, kidnapping, decapitation strikes. I'm sure they've gone through everything to try and figure out how they can do this in a couple of days.

And it looks like they haven't figured it out. That's how it looks. Of course, who knows, maybe they have figured it out. And all of this is deception. I mean, you just don't know. You don't know with Trump and his administration, but there's no doubt that what they want is a quick defeat and a quick regime change. That's what they're looking for.

That's what they've been looking for. Trump can't get it. At least that's how it looks. So comment on that. And then you run into his only other options then, which would be, well, three options, accept a deal. Yeah. agree to some sort of framework that they're obviously working on. Iran, Arachi and Whitkoff are working on, except that. A limited strike would be another option, like the first strike. You hit some facilities and then you back off, but there's a problem with that. Iran said they're not going to accept it this time around, a limited strike, or you go a full-on war. I mean, it seems like those are the options.

Those are the options. Now, the right thing to do, the correct thing to do, is to negotiate and to come to a deal, a deal which would basically, if it's ever finally agreed, would look very like the JCPOA, the Trump walked out. Which was working. Which was working, exactly. I mean, the problem with that is that, of course, Trump has trashed the JCPOA. He's told every, all he's hardline of all his hardline friends, he's Israeli friends, he's don't. that, you know, he's going to be much harder on Iran than Obama and Biden were. He's going to overthrow the Ayatollah. He comes back with something like the JCPOA. They are going to be not just furious with him, but so angry with him that they will never forgive him. I mean, it will be the moment when he loses them. If you want to get a sense of how these people think, they're just, Look, go to Mark Levins' tweets, his messages, his posts on X, and you will see how they feel about this.

If those people, all that they're given is another JCPOA or something that's actually watered down from the JCPOA, they will be absolutely furious. They will regard it as a betrayal. The alternative, which is what I think he's now leading towards, is some kind of. of limited strike. But that is very, very high risk because the Iranians are saying, and they've repeated this again, that if there is any kind of strike on Iran at all, this time they will not limit their response in the way that they did when they were attacked before. This time, we all out attack on all American facilities across the Middle East, and they might even try

to target some of the American warships, though I understand that those have been positioned as far from the Iranian coastline as it's possible to do and to keep these ships still operative. So anyway, if there is an all-out Iranian attack in response to a limited strike, then the United States is obliged to respond as Israel is, and it's a full scalpel. Whatever Trump wants, he can't ultimately, this is the problem with a limited strike. He cannot control Iran's reactions. Those are not something that he is able to exercise direct control of. The alternative is the all-out attack, which might succeed, but General Kane is now giving warnings that it might not.

And Radcliffe is also giving warnings that it might not, in which case, again, it's a long war, an attrition war lasting weeks, months, who knows how long. And that's again exactly what Trump wants to avoid. He doesn't want body bags returning to the United States. That would be an utter debacle and disaster for him. There is no good option here. My own guess is that we probably... For Trump. For Trump.

Option number one is a good option. Well, option number one is a good option. The best option, yeah. It's the best. It's the right thing to do. No question. In America's own interests, it's the absolute right. right thing to do. But he will lose the support of the donors and he will be at odds permanently

with Netanyahu and the Israelis. And I don't think he wants, I think he's terrified of being put in that position. So there it is. I mean, that's a good option for Trump. Well, it's the right option. I mean, it will be a point to be done with the donors. Can't he spin it? I mean, that is a good thing. Well, exactly. I mean, he may not realize it because he wants to be their friends. He needs these people. He wants to be in the circle. Exactly. But actually, I would probably be a positive for him.

I agree. With the voters as well. Yeah. I completely agree. But anyway, I mean, I'm sure there are some people trying to get him to understand that. People like, well, this is a guest, Vance and Gabbard. Tucker Carlson is also trying to explain this to him. But the word is that the relationship between Tucker Carlson and Trump has almost completely broken down,

even though I think Tucker Carlson is actually trying to help him. Yeah. But anyway, there it is. My own guess is, given that we're dealing with the president, who is terrified of losing face and wants to remain on good terms with his donors, that he is going to launch a limited attack. What he hoax is only going to be a limited attack on Iran. Why he thinks that's going to make things better, I cannot imagine. At best, if the Iranians limit their response, it simply kicks the can down the road.

More likely, the Iranians will do exactly what they say. And the United States could find itself in an all-out conflict in the Middle East. As I said, it doesn't look good for Trump at all. They're going to be meeting on Thursday, I believe, in Geneva. Yes. I believe Whitkoff and that actually are going to be there at Kushner as well. I mean, that's my understanding of it. And he's now trying, according to some media reports,

to put the entire burden of responsibility on Whitkoff and Kushner, saying basically that it's up to them to say whether the attack on Iran should happen, which is an abdication of responsibility, actually. He's panicking. If you think about it. He's panicking. It's the kind of thing, a scared person, a weak person, a scared person does. But it might be a sign that he is looking for a way out and he is looking to cut a deal.

Is Wyckoff going to plead with Arakhi to accept a limited strike? I mean, is that an option? Whitkoff and Cushner sitting down with Arachi and saying, look, we're in a box. we need you to respond. We're going to launch a limited strike, but we need you to respond in a limited way. Is that a possibility? It is certainly a possibility. I think Arachshu, who is a conventional diplomat, would be incredulous if Whitkoff and Kushner said something to him like that at this meeting in Oman.

Bear in mind, I gather that they won't be in the same room. Is it Oman or Geneva? that has taken place. Oh God, that's a good question because we don't really know. Finish your point, I'll look it up. Yes, we don't really know. But you're absolutely right, I'm not sure. But apparently they won't be in the same room.

So, the Amman, which is continuing to do the mediation. And by the way, it's doing it very well. They are doing mediation properly, by the way, just to say. It was the Ammanis who would have to pass that message from Whitkoff to an action. and presumably that then have to be a private meeting or something of that kind. I think Aranxi would find out absolutely bizarre. I mean, if you're going to agree something like that, you use back channels. You turn to it in direct negotiation.

The risk is that the Iranians now are probably in the mood to say no. This is the deal we're offering. Take it or leave it. Al Jazeera says Iran hails encouraging signals from U.S. before nuclear talks on Thursday, Peseshkian voices cautious optimism as Oman confirms a third round of Iran-U.S. negotiations in Geneva. Geneva. Okay. It says in Geneva.

It seems like if you just go off of this article, I'm reading the first couple of paragraphs right now, it seems as if there is a possibility that Arachi and Peseshkiyan are signaling that they would be open to an off-ramp. Oh, yeah. Well, maybe. I think that they will not agree to a limited strike, but what I think what they're saying is, let's get a deal done. It's what you said previously. That is the best solution for Trump. And by the way, there are any number of good options on the table. We've discussed them before. The consortium idea, bringing in the various Arab states. The limits again, the suspension of enrichment. Iran. The Iranians have said that they're open to that. They're happy to suspend further enrichment for two or three years. The Russian option, which is Rosatom, comes in and services the Iranian enrichment facilities and keeps the Americans and everybody else informed about what is going on. And we now know that the contacts between Iran and Russia are very intense indeed.

So there are what in any sane world, any rational world, there are lots of good options on the table. The trouble is that the people that Trump has been listening to, Mike Walsh, Mark Leffin, Benjamin Netanyahu, all sorts of others. Lindsay Graham, exactly. That's not what they want. They want regime change. They're going to be furious with Trump if they don't get it. I have to ask you the question. What does that mean?

They're going to be furious with Trump. It sounds so crazy as we're discussing this, that Trump might be going into an all-out war with Iran because of donors and these people that he's surrounded him. himself with, he has surrounded himself with these people. His fault. He hired them. He surrounded himself with these people. But still, you're going to go to war because you don't want these people to be angry with you. You don't want your donors to drop you. You don't want Republicans and Democrats. Both sides of the aisle are going to be upset with Trump. Absolutely. They're going to

go after Trump. They'll try to impeach Trump. They'll do all these things. But, you know, you're talking about a war. Yes. Well, this is, this is the problem. I mean, we haven't had a president who's been willing to stand up to these kind of pressures since arguably Ronald Reagan or perhaps even more convincingly, JFK. I mean, that's the trouble. Presidents generally cave in the face of demands of this kind, because this is how Washington politics works nowadays, and this particular president repeatedly caves. So you're quite right.

It is absurd that the president of the United States is scared of these people in the way that he clearly is. It's astonishing. But unfortunately, it's also the truth. And if we're talking about these people, I mean, the other thing to say, and this goes, you know, the Financial Times piece that I mentioned before has also said this. Maybe they've been listening to our programs, just to say. Anyway, the Financial Times... They'll never give us credit for it anyway. The Financial Times article says the same thing,

that there is no obvious good end point here. I mean, if you fail and the regime in Iran survives, that is a massive defeat. If you succeed and the regime in Iran collapses, that's a whole set of new principles. problems, perhaps even greater problems. I mean, I was reading not in the Financial Times, but in another place that if there is chaos and crisis in Iran, there is no guarantee. In fact, it's highly likely that that will spill over across the Gulf into the Arab states, the Gulf Arab

states. So there is no good outcome here. It's an interesting point that you bring up. If Trump does go ahead with a conflict. And he fails to get regime change. The donors and all these people are going to be even more upset with him. They're going to blame him. Lindsay Graham's not going to say, oh, it's my fault. You know, I wanted regime change and I advised the president poorly. No, they're going to say Trump messed up. He didn't go in hard enough. He didn't use enough tomahawks or enough this or enough that. He's going to get the blame. So, I mean, he really screwed himself here. Well, the, This is the real problem. Going back to the hardliners, I mean, they never provide any clear objective.

I mean, regime change is not an objective in itself, a good outcome. Regime change can be part of a process leading to some kind of outcome, but they never tell us ultimately what that eventual outcome that they desire is going to be. There's lots of fantasies, you know, about restoring the Shah, or rather the Shah's son, about, you know, transforming Iran into some kind of happy democracy or something of that kind. I never get the true sense that these people ever really believe any of that. I mean, this is what they always say. But what happens with them is they go on to the TV programs, on to Fox and CNN and wherever, they repeat all of these themes that they always talk about. They always press for war.

They always press for confrontation. They always say that the United States would be showing fatal weakness if you didn't follow their advice and do these incredibly violent and aggressive things that they always advocate. And, well, if it turns out wrong. they just go away, they go to the next war. They never stick around and own the outcome, however bad it is, of the war that they've advocated. And it amazes me.

It leaves me incredulous how they go from war to war to war, and they're never held to account for the outcomes of any of them. But that's where we are with them. That's why one should never listen to the advice of these people. Because they've never really provided a clear explanation on what they expect the outcome of this war in a positive sense for the United States to be. Who holds them accountable, though? I mean, who would hold Mike Walts or Lindsay Graham or any, I mean, he always gets elected. Lindsey Graham, he always wins. He always wins. So obviously, no one's holding him accountable for everything that he's done.

No. Well, he's been in Congress for, what, 32 years? 28 of them, I believe, in the Senate. So, I mean, you know, there is never any political or reputational price to be paid for failure. On the contrary, there are enormous rewards for taking this line. Your donors are happy, your friends are happy, the military-industrial complex is happy, you get appointed to prestigious think tanks, you get called an expert, you appear on the talk shows and the discussion programs, however bad things get, you personally always do well. Now, Trump himself, once upon a time, understood that. But instead of keeping his distance from these people over Iran, he's embraced them.

Yeah. Well, you know, drain the swamp, he's become the swamp. He's surrounded himself with the swamp. He's in the swamp. He's in the swamp. You never hear him talking about draining the swamp anymore. Nope. No, he doesn't.

All right. We will end the video there. the duran.locals.com. We are on X-Rumble Telegram, also on substack. So check us out on substack. There's a link to our substack in the description box down below. And also go to the Duran shop, pick up some merch, $70 and $70 order, and you get free shipping. So definitely check that out. There's a link to the Duran shop in the description box down below as well. Take care.